By Georges van Hoegaerden



To complete my affectionate series of "idiot" articles (idiot CEOs and idiot Limited Partners) I am adding idiot entrepreneurs to the list.

Idiots

Idiots are those people who continue to participate in a marketplace that was designed to marry the two most important assets in Venture, Limited Partners with money and entrepreneurs with ideas, governed by Venture Capitalists (VCs) to the dissatisfaction and under-performance of them both. Not even the public is interested (and certainly not for the right reasons, short sellers are not too picky and may artificially boost its initial IPO value).

We know that the real problems in Venture stem from how risk is applied to the creation of early stage companies, and that more discipline deployed by Limited Partners (the investors in Venture Capital) to a new Venture model will fundamentally improve the governance of innovation in the Venture marketplace.

Until then the only constituent in the Venture marketplace who cannot be called an idiot is the Venture Capitalist who without any personal downside can continue to apply the power of someone else's money to define what innovation is and continues to get away with feeble attempts to convince the public of their value for more than ten years.

Perhaps now you understand how the adjective "idiot" is a compliment of sorts. Rest assured, the behavior of and attraction to idiots can easily be fixed.

Life is hard when you follow

Life is tough for entrepreneurs, especially for those who continue to listen to the compass of Venture Capitalists, ignoring the miserable performance of that compass for the sake getting a little bit of money. With a continued dysfunctional deployment of Venture Capital many entrepreneurs continue to succumb to an arbitrage of innovation that, by default, will never lead to achieving groundbreaking upside. Even when the idea holds merit, the flawed deployment of risk by VCs is sure to suck the life out of it.

So, here is a list of attributes by which you do not want to be recognized as an entrepreneur. An idiot entrepreneur is someone:

• Who believes that technology creates markets, rather than facilitates an electronic distribution mechanism to serve existing macro-economic marketplaces and behavior.
• Who believes and accepts money to build a gating technology proposition in search of a marketplace or without a clearly defined attachment to macro-economic behavior and upside.
• Who believes that they or VCs can actually derive foresight from studying statistics and hindsight intensively, forgetting that unique foresight is the only differential and investible attribute to successful companies.
• Who believes that capital efficiency is a unique business or investment strategy available only to them or the VC and therefor delivers any differential business or investment value.
• Who believes that market execution makes up for a dysfunctional "driving experience" and takes little streams of money to keep trying.
• Who blindly believes that raising money is the first step to acceptance of his idea. Not realizing that the compass of most VCs (95%) does not lead to the creation of value to their investors nor the public, and therefor their willingness to provide money is likely to mean absolutely nothing (or quite the opposite).
• Who calls himself an entrepreneur simply because he follows VC governance of what a hot innovation wave is.
• Who thinks that raising money makes him an entrepreneur, not realizing that raising money is not a vote of confidence from the public.
• Who thinks that raising money is an asset, yet with defunct investor performance across the board and in no less than 95% of cases turns out to yield a significant deficit.
• Who takes money from a VC, without getting to know the investment partner (General Partner at the VC firm) personally.
• Who takes money from a VC, without knowing the vintage and performance of their current or stacked funds. Ignoring blissfully any irrational behavior and panic that is about to come their way soon.
• Who engages with an investor who communicates through the valuation and cap table that majority ownership by the investor is ever a good thing in an early stage company.
• Who engages in fundraising efforts without a good understanding of the product conversion rates and operating credentials, offering many opportunities to VC of shooting holes in the proposition, to say no to the deal or drop the valuation just so you lose control of the company the moment one of your predictions do not pan out.
• Who partners with a first venture investor who cannot lead the complete funding runway, setting himself up for excessive segmentation of rounds, fragmentation of ownership and increased dilution.
• Who believes that authentic IPO value can be built for less than $25M, and dicks around with micro-VCs and well meaning Angels.
• Who does not know the difference between micro private equity and Venture, praying to beat the simple economics of input and output.
• Who takes money to drive Venture growth, but has no $1B upside strategy defined.
• Who attempts to raise money from a VC without a real CEO, leaving the inmates to run the asylum and turning the company over to the VCs at the quickest pace possible.
• Who prefers to take $250K of subprime VC money in return for 30% of the company, instead of getting a line of credit on your $1.4M house in Palo Alto (with a median house price $750K in the bay area). By the way, neither one is a good idea.
• Who creates an iPhone application using Venture money, not realizing iPhone apps do not create venture returns and the top 1,000 applications on the AppleStore make no more than $350K average per year. You and your Venture investor deserve each other, including the idiot adjective.
• Who raises money from a (government) small business fund, not realizing that a venture trajectory is incompatible with small business funding.

What to do?

Truly groundbreaking innovation is no longer recognized by the majority of Silicon Valley investors. The Venture business has turned subprime more than 20 years ago and only the delayed response by Limited Partners makes it seem like it has some of its former gusto left.

Entrepreneurs are relegated to the investment thesis emitted by overwhelmingly subprime VCs (some refer to using the oxymoron: micro-VC, which in actuality is not Venture but micro Private Equity) and Angels who, each with their own performance issues, have turned innovation into a commodities business.

Groundbreaking innovation that taps into attachment of existing macro-economic behavior does not evaporate easily and has plenty of time to wait until a new Venture model capable of attracting prime risk (and rewards) is up and running again. That type of innovation can simply not be discovered by subprime VC (let alone Angels), plenty of examples in the past have proven that out. So, unless you know how to get to the 35 out of 790 VC firms that do know how to deploy risk and produce returns, of which we estimate 3/4 do so by deploying diversification, alternative investment strategies or similarly subprime gating tactics, you should keep your job until this subprime VC maelstrom has lost its strength -- or until our systemic fix to Venture is in place.

For those people who aim to follow the investment waves of the current investors, by all means keep trying. Maybe, just maybe your pot of gold will be at the end of a rainbow.

Tags: Entrepreneurs, IPhone, Innovation, Valuation, Angels, Subprime, VC, Venture, CEO

By Georges van Hoegaerden



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 meant rain more often than shine), playing in tennis (while co-founding our new club) and basketball leagues, finishing our dinners first every evening or claiming the window seat in the back of the family car. Everything back then was a competition, and as the youngest I got the brunt of the attempted suppression. Silly stuff, but it honed our skills to compete and I became very good at it.

My Dad was an educated man without much empathy, as most men born his age were (see the Mad Men TV series on AMC). I got my interest in science from him, but not much else. His vast knowledge never seemed to extrapolate to reality and he made his frustrations trickle down to everyone around him. 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. I learned from him an important lesson I am sure he did not intend to instill; how to ignore negative pressure. 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. My Mom's weakness was to let my Dad get away with too much, and nurtured her "blind" devotion often to the detriment of herself.

The most positive influence in my life was the patriarch of the family, my grandfather (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) and 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. He 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. Nobody knew how much money he had until he died. The merit of his actions stayed with us much longer than his few words.

I came to the U.S. on my own with some hard earned chunk of change in my pocket, invited by Marc Benioff (now Salesforce.com CEO, then Oracle VP) and Larry Ellison (Oracle's CEO) who wondered why I was able to sell their (then) emerging products while they couldn't. The difference between my approach and theirs was the business model, to which the new managers I was asked to report to had no clue, let alone respect. I left Oracle with fond memories as soon as my green-card was approved and jumped in Silicon Valley hoping to find more intelligence there. My first startup was a group of 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 (management incubation). We turned the company into a product company and raised a double digit series-A post 9/11. The company was sold in 2006 for triple digits. As a board member my encounters with Venture Capitalists quickly made me question their catalytic value. I went on to build a few other successful companies and had a brief part-time stint on the "dark side". A clear pattern of defunct VC governance and execution started to emerge.

To sum it up, I was brought up with an understanding of how to compete, how to separate rhetoric from reality, how to ignore distortion fields, how to be devoted to a cause, how to be clear in your convictions, how to do what you say, how to relentlessly pursue your goals, and how to do what is right even in the face of opposing popularity and extreme controversy. But most of all, I never bought into nonsense, not even when that nonsense is supported by the masses.

I put in my time to get to know every business I was in, and earned my way into becoming a systems manager, computer programmer, IT director, pre-sales engineer, marketeer, entrepreneur, serial CEO, Venture Catalyst and Venture Capitalist along the way. Nothing was handed to me (my parents decided to use my shares to pay for the private education they felt I needed), and my real world experience continues to be a priceless "bull shit" detector in every new endeavor I engaged in. After thirty years in technology (ignited by my addiction for the HP-41C) of which fifteen years in Venture, I have witnessed the workings of the Venture business like no other.

The importance of this story is not to emphasize a purported "micro celebrity status" but to highlight my convictions, as convictions drive consistent and persistent behavior. Everyone has a story like this and staying true to the convictions that are shaped by the past makes for more authentic human beings, and a more natural fit to our contributions in society.

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 Venture 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 Parters) 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.

Tags: Subprime, Limited Partners, Entrepreneurs, VC, Innovation, Integrity, Investment, Government, Growth, Arbitration, Capitalism, Cartel, Diversification, Economy, Experience, Free-market, Funds, HP, LP, Organic growth, Private Equity, Risk, SalesForce.com, Silicon Valley, SocialEconomicValue, Transparency, Venture, Oracle

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Almost one year ago I wrote a wildly popular Idiot CEOs article that highlighted my affection for the crucial role of visionary CEOs at early stage companies, and how instead they are foolishly made/forced to believe that the directives from the company's board (mostly VCs) will guide them to success.

That article was meant to protect CEOs from making mistakes and set things right from the start. So it is now a year later in which my understanding and affection for the role of Limited Partners (LPs, the investors in Venture Capital firms) is voiced in contrast to those LPs who continue to support the dysfunctional VC arbitrage in the Venture ecosystem (see our primer).

This article is meant for those LPs who do not want to earn the adjective "idiot".

Invest at "your own" risk

More important than the easy harping on "the money-men" is the serious realization that investing in venture by LPs, knowing how the VC arbitrage works today, is truly the definition of insanity. Simply put, the way VC works today cannot and will not lead to scalable performance the LPs are betting on and worse, implodes our ability as an economy to create sustainable innovation that can improve our lives, and will erode the dominant role of the United States in it.

Limited Partners (and their boards) and the Public markets are lulled into a false sense of security by Venture Capitalists (VCs) who primarily blame deplorable venture performance on the malaise in the macro-economy, which we have debunked many times. And so Limited Partners should heed the warnings in this article, and if they do not take deliberate action to investigate their actual deployment of risk are going to lose much more than they already have.

Change you must believe in

As many aspects of the technology sector have changed and having met as many VCs as I have over the years, you will realize they have not changed along with it.

- Market access has changed
About 30 years ago, Venture relied on a small and proprietary market model to drive insular innovations that each relied on nothing but itself to carve out a market. A lot of critical success factors have changed since then, and the Internet has all but evaporated the luxury of monolithic access to markets and a straightforward and private way of addressing it. Today's buyers of technology have many more (often jarring) options, which has dramatically increased competition and forces VCs to understand and support the complexity of hybrid market models, unique product experiences, social economic value and a clear understanding of what drives value beyond simply being there first.

- The technology stack has evolved
Technology has become more pervasive in our lives, albeit more than 80% of the worlds population still does not use the internet for meaningful applications. Usage has evolved from the office to everyday lifestyle, with more demanding user experiences as the impetus to buy. No longer is the value of Intellectual Property (IP) simply defined by the ferocity of the many lines of proprietary software code, but by how the proposed user experience uniquely crosses (and hides) the complex boundaries of code, content, distribution, relationships, marketplaces and hardware. Simply put: no longer is the value of the spark plug more important than the value of the car. Producing code is no longer the sole testament of the ability to deliver groundbreaking value.

- Risk and returns have systemically deflated
As Paul Kedrosky (author of "Infectious Greed") alluded to at the Milken Conference panel, "old VC brands are dead". But not for the reason most people think. Counter to what VCs make their own investors believe, investing in Venture has become even more of a specialty and harder, not easier and certainly not cheaper. Fear and the inability of incumbent VCs to change, have forced many VCs to continue to invest using the old Venture model in a market and with technology that has fundamentally changed. Twenty years of VC resistance to change has already turned Venture investing into a subprime sector in which micro-PE (micro-Private Equity) risk deploys no more than micro-PE returns, regardless of the state of the macro economy. And worse, it has attracted developers who think of themselves as entrepreneurs when they feed the VC's micro-PE hunger.

- The VC demi-cartel has no way to detect innovation
As technology is getting more competitive, global and evolves faster than ever before, the current demi-cartel consisting of VCs with a single (outdated) investment thesis that heavily relies on syndication (i.e. consensus) with fragmentation of dollars and deflation of risk to support innovation is counter productive to the economic indicators that are pointing the other way. With ten levels of risk diversification and deliberate price-setting, Venture has become the systemic rollover of the car business, and in need of a overhaul of standards and requirements. Real innovators do not engage with venture anymore, and leave VCs alone with their self-induced and spiraling down subprime investment malaise, patiently waiting for it to break and reset itself completely.

- The grass is not greener
When life gets harder only mediocrity walks away in search for greener pastures. I too believe in a more responsible and greener world, just not with Venture Capital as the financial instrument to drive it. Mediocre VCs are exactly those VCs who successfully sell that the Venture model founded on the fluent economics of technology, blindly applies to every other "feel-good" growth sector, which subsequently lands more LP support and therefor a longer stay in the derivatives investment business. No other asset class than technology venture provides more immediate and effective economies of scale for creation, distribution and adoption of value, that is if as a VC you can define the compass of real value.

Super Pimps

To continue the corollary from Idiot CEOs and based on the fascinating HBO documentary Pimps Up, Hoes Down referenced in the article, idiot LPs are the Super Pimps who believe that the premise of investing in venture, knowing how VCs treat and detect entrepreneurs will continue to deliver outlier returns.

For intelligent LPs, who like many smart rich people continue to write their own checks and get involved in how the rubber meets the road, a wonderful future of returns still lies ahead in technology venture. LPs need to invest in understanding the whole venture ecosystem, and be able to challenge the risk models VC deploy in order to make the smart choices that come with great returns. And today's smart choices are not yesterday's.

But those LPs who by virtue of the deployment of a defunct venture market model, stale VC experience, and a venture cartel treat entrepreneurs like Hoes, will get and deserve nothing more than they have for the last ten years.

Tags: Limited Partners, Innovation, Investment, Marketplace, Private Equity, Subprime, VC, Cartel

By Georges van Hoegaerden

[This article is a further expansion on the subject of Capital Efficiency of our article from one year ago, named "The trap of Capital Efficiency"]

I cannot tell you how many times I still hear Venture Capitalists (VCs) mention how they look for and "create" capital efficient companies, and how masterfully they continue to sell that "strategy" to their Limited Partners (LPs) as a viable investment thesis.

Those LPs subsequently must believe that they are now investing in a unique class of companies only they have access to (otherwise why is the mention of the specific denomination relevant), and instead of clambering to the old world of capital-inefficient companies, now have the opportunity to prance around in the formation of new, and sexy capital-efficient companies.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Perhaps for those not seeing through the tactics of the spin-doctors.

Let's dissect "capital efficiency" as deployed by most VCs:

First, putting less money into companies, or selecting innovation that supposedly needs less money is a strategy deployed in the last 10 years that has proven not to work. 790 VC firm investors who make - say - two investments per year on average (low ball), produced no more than a handful of IPOs and no more than 10% IRR over the last ten years, is no testament that an attachment to the "capital efficiency" category carries any special value. With our economy now also in dire straits, the chances of capital efficiency bearing fruit has diminished even further.

Second, with a fully loaded commitment from LPs the last ten years, VCs who look for capital efficient deals are dramatically fragmenting investment commitments by having to invest in more companies (to put the full capacity of the fund to work), and conversely increase the investment risk at a time when performance of the sector is already shaky. So the supposed capital efficiency of a startup, with uncalibrated VC fund sizing is actually capital inefficient to LPs.

Third, the cost of acquiring a customer on the Internet has not dramatically changed over the years (if not increased), and so to lower the input into early stage technology companies disproportionate to the dynamics of their output does not only make no economical sense, it again increases the risk of success, opposite of what capital efficiency attempts to promise.

Fourth, Internet technology companies deploy the same rudimentary economics to their customers as old-school companies, they are just using a low threshold (often immature) and a more immediate distribution channel (the Internet). But that immediacy combined with a little bit of money needed to enter into distribution significantly increases competition that in the end favors only those companies that provide relevant social economic value to its customers. And so not the lowest cost-to-entry defines the value of the company, but the quality of service it delivers to its customers. And quality of service is adversely affected by the improper implementation of capital efficiency and thus the reason why the current implementation of capital efficiency in venture capital is incompatible with building real value and public market trust (and therefor reliable IPOs).

Fifth, capital efficiency as deployed by many VCs today, forces startup companies to build technology first. Yet the gating technology proposition offers no indication that the company will ever achieve macro-economic value that has the potential to outshine competition for the next seven years or more. For example, building winner-takes-all marketplaces (such as iTunes, eBay etc.) requires a minimal investment incompatible with the capital efficient VC model, and as such we have not seen any since the popularity of the flawed implementation of that model.

Sixth, technology development is not the risk of a technology company, the application of the appropriate technology to a marketplace is. So, while it may have become slightly cheaper to develop a single line of code these days (I would argue that too), the amount of code needed to make a difference in a highly competitive market, forces companies to make more meaningful and robust products, which requires the deployment of a larger workforce with a cost that hasn't seen any significant reduction. So, just like in any production business, the people-cost is the most predominant factor of the success of the company, not the expense of technology it deploys.

So, yes, capital efficiency the way it is deployed by the demi-cartel of VCs is a big fat lie, that has not and will not deliver.

The ultimate subprime VC lie

Don't get me wrong, capital efficiency is a prudent way to build any company. But the way most VCs confuse capital efficiency lies in the difference between inexpensive and cheap. The way most VCs implement capital efficiency is cheap and lowers a company's ability to grow up, and makes it more difficult for the company to move from the left side of the chasm (Geoffrey Moore) to the right side, where massive user adoption awaits.

The currently popular deployment of capital efficiency spoon-feeds money to startups, which in most cases means the company cannot hire the much needed specialized expertise to turn it from a technology play into a real company early. Many startups can simply not hire a visionary CEO who protects their macro-economic agenda (and returns), and ensures the company remains owner-run (also favored by Warren Buffet) rather than investor-run. That means technology developers without sufficient business experience now run the asylum as inmates of the "investor prison", doomed to make the early mistakes that dilutes founding ownership and therefor - again - increases risk.

So, capital efficiency deployed by subprime VCs is a foolish prophecy. Any VC who uses the phrase capital efficiency as a sector differentiation has no clue what he is talking about. For me, having seen all sides of the venture equation, capital efficiency is the ultimate VC bullshit detector; it communicates they understand nothing about economics, investment risk, innovation, the workings of the technology sector, and business in general.

Capital efficiency today is implemented as downside protection by subprime VCs who look at venture investing as a commodity, and signals how they themselves therefor have become a commodity (and do not belong to operate in Venture Capital).

Capital efficiency should drive upside

Real capital efficiency in venture capital is defined by the cost to produce upside, as opposed to the cost to protect downside. Most companies become extremely capital efficient once they establish beforehand what the operating plan of the business looks like in detail, and as such plausibly define how they need to be "lubed up" to run as efficiently as possible to achieve upside early.

Contrary to popular Silicon Valley belief, technology does not create markets but has - at best - proven to support macro-economic and marketplace behavior that existed for many years. And real capital efficiency is easily achieved by identifying the behaviors that can be more efficiently supported or displaced with the help of technology as content and the internet as distribution. The selection of which marketplace (that is in timely need of efficiency) you pick as an investor determines how capital efficient an individual investment can be.

Capital efficiency, therefor is not a sector strategy, but a way of picking individual companies that have the potential to create extreme and timely upside.

So, from now on dear LP and entrepreneur, when you hear a VC mention capital efficiency, run the other way.

Tags: Subprime, Private Equity, Venture, Limited Partners, Entrepreneurs, VC, Fundraising, Funds

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I have the utmost respect for groundbreaking entrepreneurs, or better yet all the people who produce great products (or unique services). I love technology and believe we have not even scratched the surface of its macro-economic impact.

And it is those entrepreneurs, with the simple power of their dreams and perseverance, who collectively and unwaveringly hold up the massive weight of an outdated and incompatible financial system eleven times the size of production that keeps this country afloat.

It is for them that I fight to make our financial system more modern and nimble to withstand the test of time.

The writing is on the wall

Unless you have been living under a rock, you should by now be aware that the performance in Venture for the last twenty years has been deplorable. After a fantastic start by people like Bill Draper, and point successes from next generation icons like Vinod Khosla in the nineties, Venture quickly became the stomping ground for anybody with money, not necessarily combined with merit.

Growing numbers of Venture Capital (VC) firms arguably over-invested in their interpretation of innovation that had the majority of even the 90s funds (with vintages in the 2000s) generating no more than 10% IRR on average. Just the last 10 years VCs have generated no more than 3% public value out of all investments made, or specifically lost about $1.7 Trillion in, mostly public, money from their Limited Partners (LPs). And the performance of the current funds does not look much brighter as witnessed by incoming reports from early 2000 funds and the discontent of many LPs I speak with.

And on the mirror

But even if you are not a fan of numbers, which often become the subject of endless debate and can be excused away since they are lagging, not leading indicators, Venture has produced only a handful of viable companies that ultimately created some sustainable value public markets have faith in. Seven-hundred-and-ninety (790) VC firms in the U.S. chomping at the bit producing no more than a handful successes is the billowing smoke that indicates a raging fire. More specifically it indicates "the system" or "the compass" by which Venture is deployed does not work, its systemic approach is broken and only a few outliers in Venture produce the returns that make the headlines for all.

When doing your best just isn't good enough

VCs now hold on for dear life, blaming their lack of performance on esoteric macro "windows" of opportunity (irrelevant to startups), and they feverishly add up portfolio revenues to claim they are still producing value and are doing "their best", all while big corporations frequently beat them to the punch with real innovation that outpaces the market.

VCs attempt to hang on to comparing Venture to 100-year old asset-classes, sectors or segment indices, patting themselves on the back with a relativity theory that is as flawed as comparing apples and oranges. Unlike these old indices that have become somewhat stale because of their age, Venture continues to ride on the information technology platform that continues to grow aggressively (despite the economy) and still leaves a massive greenfield (5/6 of the world's population) underserved. VCs have not succeeded in tapping into that upswing and their best is clearly not good enough to make us proud.

Venture Capital morphed into Micro-PE

Venture Capital, after the irrational exuberance of the early 90s, has quickly and predominantly turned subprime - or - into micro-Private Equity, with most risks deflated and/or deferred to the entrepreneurs. LPs who thought they invested in Venture Capital, by virtue of how they deployed money, instead invested in a more risk averse Private Equity segment, a different thesis with different risk/rewards associated with it. But we ended up getting what we invested in; micro-PE returns. Nothing Ventured, nothing gained.

Looking good spending money

Now, I see some LPs "blindly" renewing their commitment to Venture, which for LPs that have access to prime VC firms that have still produced healthy returns in the last two decenniums makes only nominal sense. If an LP does not have the wherewithal to understand the dysfunction in Venture, it may as well bet on the best horse in the race, even if the race ends up being a Private Equity race instead. Those LPs may make a buck (with a minor part, 10-15% of their total allocation), maybe even outpace other asset classes and care less.

But the wide-open greenfield in technology and the culmination of a fantastic real-time distribution mechanism (the Internet) of technology should have made technology Venture the best performing asset-class, bar none. That is of-course, if one understand the requirements of the sector and deploys the appropriate risk, discipline and market model.

Social Economic Value

Most of the money invested in Venture is (indirectly) public money, such as the endowments and pension funds (CalPERS, ~$17B) which beyond a sheer money making objective also has a strong social economic value attached to it. CalPERS needs the money, but also needs Silicon Valley to be at the top of its game to produce healthy economic spin-out (driving other asset classes as well). The new funds just deployed by the North Carolina and Florida (coming) treasurers also promise to carry the good karma spawned to aid the most important driver of the economy; innovation.

Yet most meaningful innovation, that has the potential to scale big fast, does not start with or in Private Equity, it starts with the unique risks deployed by Venture Capital. And so the importance of what you as an LP are betting on, with the specific knowledge of what is Venture and what is not, is crucial in establishing a healthy conversion from technology to large social economic value, and subsequently public support and trust.

The Insanity in Venture

The systemic failure in Venture to produce returns in line with the wide-open opportunities in technology is the result of the composition of its incompatible financial system. Venture today is an artificially restricted marketplace to which not the outliers of innovation are attracted, but those who are attracted to the commoditized investment thesis of the predominantly subprime VCs.

But even if one knows nothing about Venture, insanity is the descriptor that belongs to the person who believes in a marketplace where the following attributes can consistently produce outlier returns:

• A marketplace that marries the assets of supply and demand, with the arbiter not having - or earning - verifiable merit
• A marketplace that marries the assets of supply and demand, using a single commoditized investment thesis
• A marketplace that hides behind the performance of hybrid asset classes, sectors, segments and stages
• A marketplace that hides behind ten levels of diversification of risk
• A marketplace in which the arbiters do not compete (but syndicate)
• A marketplace which openly engages in price-setting and operates as an innovation demi-cartel
• An in-transparent marketplace that functions like a black-box to most marketplace participants
• A marketplace that appears extremely sensitive to economic aberrations
• A marketplace that has not produced healthy returns in twenty years

No tinkering with micro-economics in the marketplace such as management fees, carries or other micro-incentives can turn a subprime VC, prime. Just like entrepreneurs are born, not created, so are venture investors with their unique intuition for taking risk born, not created.

The marketplace needs to be rebuilt from scratch and embed free-market principles that allows for healthy competition between all participants in the marketplace. Any LP with $1 Billion committed to Venture can do so independently today, and reap the rewards that lies at the untapped and phenomenal foundation of the growth in technology.

We owe change in Venture to those that produce

We owe it to the producers of groundbreaking products and value, to support them with a financial system that is lean and mean, nimble and modern, competitive and transparent, that dynamically establishes, monitors and corrects the merit associated with all marketplace participants. We will dramatically flatten and simplify the marketplace, remove excessive diversification and fragmentation of risk. We, the marketplace, will establish and expose the authentic merit of every participant.

Venture investors with merit and foresight will thrive by ignoring subprime propositions that cannot re-establish their individual supremacy, and instead focus on those innovations that match their authentic competency and skills. Groundbreaking entrepreneurs will come out of the woodworks again once they see the development of a better custodian than their corporate overlords flourish. Limited Partners will be happy because they reap rewards that outperforms their ancient asset classes by a long shot.

Groundbreaking entrepreneurs are the life-blood of this country and we better start treating them with the care and attention they deserve. We need to lift the weight of this incompatible financial system off their shoulders if we want to remain on the leading edge of innovation.

We still can.

Tags: Subprime, Limited Partners, VC, Venture, CalPERS, Macro-economics, Marketplace, Meritocracy, Transparency

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I have disclosed in "How to fix VC once and for all" one important aspect of how to fundamentally change the financial system in Venture, and that is to change it into a real marketplace. A free-market in which marketplace transparency to all participants will establish the true merit of all participants; Limited Partners (LPs), Venture Capitalists (VCs) and Entrepreneurs alike.

Without that marketplace transparency, Venture Capital will continue to slide down the sub-prime investment slope it has been on the last 10, if not 20 years, leaving a growing opportunity of disruptive innovation under-financed and starving. Unchanged, the deployment of LP dollars will continue to fragment and yield even lower public value and trust than it has produced over the last 10 years.

Top-level Venture reform

The systemic failure of the financial system in Venture is why its output does not generate enough value (M&A, IPO etc). Venture Capital needs to become more agile, risk-taking, transparent and accountable (turn prime) in order to consistently attract entrepreneurs with a value that can change the world.

Its financial system is what turned Venture Capital sub-prime, not the lack of entrepreneurs, developers, visas, too many regulations, sarbox, FAS157 etc.. Once we change Venture into an efficient free-market marketplace I can assure you many of the current restrictions, born out of an artificially regulated market, will simply dissipate or become irrelevant.

Today, Venture performance is severely hindered by its black-box, under-the-table, institutionalized, monolithic operations. Lack of marketplace transparency (amongst many other deficiencies):

• allows walking dead VC firms to crush the dreams of (unknowing) entrepreneurs
• prevents competition between VCs, leading to a demi-cartel and a commoditized investment thesis
• allows GPs to hide behind the (often outdated) brand of their aging VC institutions
• clouds the difference between money and merit

Take me serious

Building a new financial system for the sake of re-empowering innovation through Venture is "my new startup", and as is typical to innovation, many first ignored me, then they ridiculed me, then they fought me, and then I win (Ghandi quote).

I win because Venture reform is the right thing to do for our country (not because I have an axe to grind). I win because the sector has lost serious money. I win because the opportunities in Venture have never been better. I win because the systemic failure of VC proves they are wrong. I win because there are no more bubbles for VCs to ride. I win because VCs are running out of excuses and time. I win because VCs (by virtue of their selections) have abused the trust of public markets. I win because entrepreneurs are unhappy with whom they partner and how they are being treated. I win because both asset holders in Venture are unhappy with the derivative. I win because I have identified the systemic failure in Venture and have a solution to fix it all in one fell swoop. We all win because that solution gets us all to a better place, including VCs with merit.

LPs own the problem

LPs are becoming aware of VC dysfunction and have started calling their Fund-of-funds and VCs based on my individual conversations with them and my blog, some VCs have confessed to me. LPs are at the top of the food-chain and can no longer deploy money without verifying the merit of the underlying financial system, top-to-bottom. The behavior of the dog is the responsibility of its owner, and so is the performance of VC the discipline of the LP.

LPs now start to realize that great performance in Venture comes from establishing discipline. Not just to who, but how they deploy money matters, and what the impact is on the rest of their value chain and the sector. How it affects VCs and how its finds the outliers of innovation that can produce substantial value. Only that discipline can fundamentally and consistently lead to great performance.

Smart LPs in Venture understand how to rely on a real marketplace in which merit and real competition (not the artificial one Tim Draper defines as "I have respect for all my competitors. We co-invest together.") thrives to find the outliers of innovation.

Inappropriate measures

It still baffles me how some LPs continue to recommit to Venture without a change to the underlying financial system and marketplace characteristics. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised: a sector that has previously managed to sell the delusion of cyclical performance, measured against irrelevant market indices, and attracted the improper influence of the macro-economy, is very capable of producing new promises to maintain its position.

LPs should just not expect those promises to come true, not again. That would be the definition of insanity.

What is not a solution to Venture is cutting management fees. Changes in fees and carry structures are not going to change a sub-prime VC to prime. You cannot train or coax sub-prime VCs to become prime, in the same way you cannot train or coax people to become entrepreneurs. You are or you are not (by virtue of your DNA and life experiences). And just like VCs need to focus on the creation of upside, not the protection of downside - so do LPs need to focus on the upside with VC, established by merit, rather than protecting downside.

Lift the veil off my plan

But marketplace transparency is just one aspect of my plan. The Venture reform described in the (for customers only version of the) acclaimed presentation "2010: The State of Venture Capital" resolves all of the aforementioned issues in Venture, including:

• reduces ten levels of diversification by more than half
• eliminates bottom-heavy diversification
• employs far less fragmentation of risk
• establishes a meritocracy of GPs
• creates natural competition between GPs
• de-commoditizes the investment thesis
• allows for the discovery of the outliers of innovation
• provides better support for entrepreneurs
• deploys real venture capital
• builds more stable companies
• builds more disruptive value

First movers advantage

Prior to Apple entering the music arena, many VCs invested in music without producing any lasting public value. Now in Venture I am about to deploy a winner-takes-all Venture platform that leaves the LP laggers with artificial Venture marketplaces behind. Venture, the way it works today can never function nor scale, because the market model is simply incompatible with the discovery of the outliers innovation.

I invite the LPs who see the wide-open greenfield opportunity in Venture, to hop on board and use a brand new mower that is indeed capable of harvesting the hay that is ready for the taking. Innovation is by no means dead, and neither is the fantastic new opportunity to monetize it.

Tags: Venture, Limited Partners, VC, Marketplace, Meritocracy, Subprime, Apple

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Part of the discovery of coming up with a permanent fix to Venture came not from an endless debate about what happened to Venture (although I am more than willing to do so on occasion) but to envision what should happen to Venture if one were to erect the sector now (something emerging economies are actively pondering).

That is perhaps the reason why the only one who could come up with a permanent fix to Venture is an entrepreneur. Because as an entrepreneur you are born with the gift not to analyze existing market deficiencies (with loads of statistics) until you are blue in the face, but to reconstruct and imagine a new and much bigger opportunity from your (perhaps idealistic) view of how the world should work. And then to develop such a robust new system so the bad things from the past find automatic resistance (not manual labor or government regulation).

And boy, do I believe in a big opportunity in Technology Venture. I even believe it scales.

Is this working for you?

I use the previous phrase from Oprah a lot as it communicates so well that regardless of anyone's rational for the prospects of innovation, the current system under which we deploy it simply does not work. And I pity the LPs who with blinders on, continue down this road expecting a different result. Good luck!

To reiterate again, over the last 10 years (some technology celebrities say longer) we, as participants in the sector have generated less than 10% IRR to Limited Partners (LPs, who disseminate their money through VC), wasted about $1.9 Trillion in funds that never produced any public value and have left LPs and entrepreneurs severely disillusioned about the value, viability and path of innovation.

All the while, many Venture Capitalists, as the derivatives (without assets) in this marketplace pride themselves being in the top quartile (a meaningless definition in its own right), or the survivor of "the fittest" of an underperforming sector with little value. They continue to stuff their pockets with a fat-and-happy management fee that allows them to retire for life (sometimes after just one 10-year try and vintage), publicly comforting themselves that the world has changed so much that it is now time for new investors to step in. Thanks a lot, after having taken Venture for a very comfortable ride without producing real returns, and worse, soiling the pool for the rest of us.

The real asset holders in Venture, LPs with money and entrepreneurs with ideas have been fooled (many times over). But by who really?

Who's bubble is it?

As you can tell from the last paragraph I am often irritated by the lack of integrity of many human beings, especially of those who do anything to make a buck. Because VCs with integrity could solve their own issues in Venture without the need for a complete Venture overhaul. But that would require their ability to be self critical (they have done nothing but blame external factors) and people who are confident enough to cannibalize their own position for the greater good. Too idealistic perhaps. And so a new system in Venture needs to include not just measures to provide better upside but a concerted and immediate eradication of those intermediaries that do not perform.

But we need to fix the disease not merely fix the symptoms and the following quote from Einstein comes to mind:

"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." - Albert Einstein

Which I parlay in Venture to:

"I mistrust many venture capitalists for good reason (their lack of merit), but have learned that the casual connection is the dysfunctional financial system that allows them to take it for a ride." - Georges van Hoegaerden

Just like the behavior of a dog is the responsibility of its owner, so is the performance of the VC the responsibility of the Limited Partner. And VC does not perform (and unchanged will not) because it selects companies that are sub-prime innovations that do not have a strong potential to yield public value. And that is because many VCs themselves are sub-prime and therefor unable to spot disruptive innovation to begin with. On top of that we have an in-transparent financial system that allows for bottom-heavy diversification of more than ten layers deep (see "2010: The State of Venture Capital"), that is far removed from an efficient marketplace in which LPs and entrepreneurs can verify the merit of the ideal VC matchmakers.

Blame where blame is due

And so the real owner of the bubble is (again) our financial system that allows sub-prime operators (VCs without entrepreneurial merit) to slip in and mess up the initial success of the venture sector that was so beautifully crafted by Bill Draper and the likes.

So, the 2001 implosion was not a tech bubble, but a finance bubble and a clear warning of what is to come to other sectors that deploy the same economic model to their respective domains (I have spotted the pattern).

We need entrepreneurs to think bigger (not more restricted) and unabashed to find the next innovation that can change the world. But only an economic system that deploys prime matchmakers will be able to cherry-pick those prospects. So, in the end we cannot really blame the current crop of sub-prime VCs for getting picked, and they will continue to sit on their throne (a ten year vintage) until time runs out anyway, but we need to change our economic system so we prevent them from entering in the first place. And changing management fees (that some focus on) alone does not turn a sub-prime VC into prime.

With our financial system eleven times the size of production, it is time for the foundation of our economic system to get an overhaul. And Venture would be a great place to start.

Tags: Limited Partners, Venture, Entrepreneurs, Subprime, VC, Economy

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Last week, through a long string of conversations with a CalPERS board member and some trusted peers, I ended up speaking with Joe Dear (Chief Investment Officer) and other members of his Venture team at CalPERS in Sacramento, the largest pension fund in the United States with $200 Billion in total Assets Under Management and single largest investor in the Venture sector (as a Limited Partner, or LP), with an allocation of around $20 Billion in direct and indirect (fund-of-funds) alternative investments (which includes venture).

Joe expressed specific concern about the ailing Venture sector, a message we as participants in the Venture ecosystem should all take very seriously. I do, because I hear it all the time, and it worries me how devastating a withdrawal of CalPERS (10% or so of all U.S. Venture and the consequent ripple) from Venture would be to Silicon Valley and to our country.

Such withdrawal would be devastating to our entrepreneurial capacity and drive to which we owe our statue in the world. We still have many parasites (some quite well known, and not too anxious to be found out) who are too busy deploying ingenious methods to suck this ecosystem dry while it lasts, unable and unwilling to see the dark clouds forming above their heads.

Yet, we all need to pay attention to the discomfort of LPs, and resolve those - not with a new set of lies and promises - but with a breakthrough systemic solution to improve the performance of Venture Capital.

Late to the table in 1988 as portfolio manager Jesús Argüelles explains, CalPERS made up for it in the 90s followed by disappointing performance today. Joe questioned the sector's viability as a whole, by rhetorically asking me (amongst other topics):

Does Venture Scale?

Before I answer that question it is important to note how ignorant the many players in Venture are to the impending threat this question poses.

1. At this public event, I recognized only two Venture Capital (VC) firms that where present. If as a VC I really wanted to make money for my LP in these turbulent times, I would show up to offer whatever support I can muster. I did: to represent the unwavering value of disruptive innovation.
2. No-one of note from the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) was present according to the attendee listing handed out at the event. Rather than to focus on helping CalPERS generate upside, I guess it prefers to spend its time protecting its members' downside to lawmakers. The VC lobbyist needs to rethink its leadership focus.
3. The dismay of LPs in the Venture sector is in sharp contrast to the incessant, blind, self-serving and false optimism of many Venture participants, journalists and investors who continue to suck entrepreneurs dry and leave a subprime Venture pool behind that clouds the opportunity for serious investors and serious entrepreneurs.
4. No-one (except we) in the Venture community is truly acknowledging, with a plan of change, how the performance in Venture can systemically be improved. Better times, with more of the same is what many wait for, but hope is not a plan.
5. If we do not take the subtle message from CalPERS serious, more than 10% of Venture investments in the United States could suddenly disappear, with many other LPs quickly following suit. And that means that (once again) the deployment of an incompatible financial system destroys the innovative capacity of those that deserve better.

My answer

So, my short answer to Joe's loaded question was:

"Sub-prime Venture does not scale, but Prime Venture does".

The currently deployed economic model of Venture will never scale, and here is why:

1. Ten levels of diversification with multiple (hybrid) relationships from LP to startup investment makes it impossible to identify the real merit and performance of VCs and the validity of their investment thesis.
2. A (loosely coupled) commoditized investment thesis can never outgrow its peers, and thus is incapable of generate meaningful alpha.
3. Sub-prime VC systemically destroys the trust of Public Markets by pushing so-called innovations through the funnel, soiling the opportunity for more discretionary value.

The necessity to produce public value

It is a bad idea to ignore the public's perception of Venture Capital. With a large sum of Venture money (roughly $1.9 Trillion) over the last 10 years producing no substantial public value by way of IPO, sub-prime VC has lost the confidence of the public that does not only supply the money to VC (indirectly through the public pension funds, endowments etc.) but is also expected to buy post-IPO stock on the public stock market.

So, rather than to continue with "the models for success that have worked for our industry in past decades" as many of the NVCA cohorts continue to preach, we need to rely on a new economic model that fundamentally changes Venture Capital to its core.

Our proposal in the presentation "2010: The State of Venture Capital" will do so and it scales because:

1. Our Venture model removes the diversification at the bottom of the Venture equation, exposing VC matchmaker merit and accountability.
2. Our Venture model employes dynamic marketplace merit, not static institutional merit.
3. Our Venture model attracts unique investment theses that have the ability to find the outliers of innovation.

Incompatible financial systems

The problem with Venture is that traditional financial systems (stemming from more conservative asset classes and times) are incompatible with the risk and returns that early stage Venture has to offer. Over time the old financial system has steadily suffocated, and worse alienated disruptive innovation, by forcing sub-prime innovation through an exit funnel that as a result left a trail of eroded trust.

Venture has lost trust with public markets, but even more so with the outlier entrepreneur. Truly disruptive ideas do not even show up at the doorsteps of many VCs any more, because certain corporations have become better custodians of innovation than venture capital (remember those ludicrous buyers/sellers-market arguments of VCs).

Change the dating service

But just because VC is broken does not mean innovation is. We need to re-establish the merit and definition of disruptive innovation and stimulate the creative and intelligent minds that can spawn it. The Internet provides a massive opportunity to tap into the buying power of 5/6th of the world population that is still technologically disenfranchised.

But if we leave the Venture Marketplace functioning the way it does today, less money-in will not change the alpha (portfolio returns) for Limited Partners. Survival of the fittest in a dysfunctional market is a worthless asset.

Superior Economics

Smart Limited Partners stay committed and realize that Technology Venture has superior economics, that with the right economic construct has the ability to outperform any other asset class.

Technology feeds the brain in the same way water feeds the body. Technology can be served up in many ways to produce, share and monetize knowledge, just like water can be used to produce soup, coffee, tea or anything else you can think of. We have all the ingredients in this country to make lovely dishes, all we need is a better economic system to attract the right chefs with scrumptious recipes.

The new size of Venture Capital

So, stop making statements about whether Venture Capital should be smaller or larger. It's a futile discussion. The size of an inefficient marketplace is irrelevant and thus by definition wrong. First we need to deploy an efficient marketplace (that is designed to find the real merit of innovation), before we can make educated guesses about how to best support it with a proper financial system and size. Lowering the commitment to Venture Capital does not create more efficiency, changing the marketplace does.

So, LPs need to deploy a new economic system that systemically roots out sub-prime. The solution that scales to its authentic potential is here today.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Subprime, Meritocracy, NVCA, Marketplace, CalPERS

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I covered the systemic risk of Venture Capital (VC) many times (see in my previous article "Less is more") and emphasized how the passion to create disruptive innovation is the driving force of our great nation, an asset the rest of the world looks up to and I aim to protect with everything I have.

I came to this country some 15 years ago to pursue my entrepreneurial endeavors and despite my successes have seen the effects of a debilitating venture business restrict the dreams and bright future of others.

Even some of my entrepreneurial work could have yielded better financial returns, were it not for the subprime nature of some VCs (and their entourage) of whom, in an in-transparent business (read "How to fix VC once and for all"), it is often impossible to establish their real merit (and character) ahead of time.

The Venture Dilemma

Limited Partners (Pension funds, Endowments, Family trusts etc.) who supply their money to VC in capital-calls are faced with the harsh reality that venture (the venture capital sector) has produced less than 10% IRR for the last ten years and are now asked again to buy into the rhetoric from General Partners (GPs) at the VC firm that none of this was their fault, and renew 10-year multimillion and sometimes billion dollar commitments. The question for the Limited Partner (LP) arises; should I stay or should I go?

Many Prime VC Firms have Turned Subprime Too

Top quartile performance (a meaningless definition in its own right) by one VC fund is unlikely to rescue the plethora of under-performers nor yield much higher than 10% IRR in total LP sector returns. And even the performance of classic top-tier VC funds leaves a lot to be desired.

Mayfield Fund appears to have no regret admitting “classic bubble” mistakes and “bringing in big company management”, non-market risk mistakes that do not belong to a seasoned investor. Sequoia Capital issued a dramatic cutback message at first dawn of the economic crisis to its portfolio companies, in essence communicating that their companies are not disruptive enough to withstand economic aberrations. From public reporting by a public pension fund, Draper Fischer Jurvetson does not appear to be knocking it out of the ball-park either. Rumor has it that another top-tier firm, Benchmark Capital is the only firm in Silicon Valley to produce more than a 1x return on all of its funds. This is totally unacceptable performance and behavior of venture firms we collectively tend to think of as top quartile. Are they?

Many of the top-tier funds that flourished in strong winds and made even turkeys fly, have diluted their teams with general partners who simply lack the relevant operational experience (read "Why VCs really need relevant operating experience, now") needed to prevent them too from sliding into the overwhelmingly subprime venture ecosystem.

The Threat to Innovation

Clearly LPs have alternative options of deploying money into other asset classes (liquid or illiquid) and not buying into the feeble VC (and their lobbying organization) arguments will by default yield to a significant reduction of funding for innovation if not cause the industry to spiral further down to inappropriately applied risk and deal commoditization (we refer to as subprime VC).

At least ten years of subprime VC continues to attract subprime entrepreneurs which in turn creates more subprime performance and turns venture capital into micro private equity (PE). The erosion of the venture sector is well on its way and LP assets meant to be deployed to high-risk/high-yield innovation have instead slid down to high-risk/low-yield scale. LPs who meant to invest in venture, have instead invested in micro-PE.

Technology is Not the Risk

Fragmentation and further diversification at the VC level is not the answer to an ailing venture business. While it is exciting for the unknowing entrepreneur to see new angels attempt to fulfill the role VCs are not; such as Jason Calacanis, Adeo Ressi from The Funded, and other new angel groups, the early stage technology trials (as I prefer to call them) continue to deploy the wrong risk and continue to pull the venture business further into the swamp of subprime innovation. As I described before (also read my reference to Vinod Khosla's model of investing), technology development is not the investment risk of the venture business.

Smart LPs Look for a New Breed of GPs

Those LPs who do not want to flee the venture sector and realize that technology still has a bright future ahead better not make the same mistakes twice. The dating service of innovation (VC) may not be working correctly, but the real asset holders in the marketplace of innovation (see my article on the innovation marketplace) are eager and aplenty to monetize a new world of change.

New VC fund requirements need to be established to reintroduce risk-taking Venture Capital to the technology sector which subsequently attracts entrepreneurs that have the capacity and drive to change the world.

LPs need to:

• Establish new GP qualification criteria. Money without merit is not likely to yield outlier results.
• Re-evaluate Private Placement Memorandums to focus on market risk rather than technology risk
• Drive defragmentation and accountability of the investment thesis
• Implement merit based GP remuneration, including downside

Financial marketplace imperfections aside, the miserable performance of the venture sector has nothing to do with the economy and has everything to do with the risk we as early stage investors deploy to attract truly groundbraking innovation.

I have been called taking cheap shots at VC when they are down - by one VC titan I reached out to. But for some reason I do not feel bad demanding excellence from people driving their Maseratis and Porsches from the mostly public money that feeds them. It is not personal, but we owe it to our economy to return merit-to-money.

Limited Partners are in full control of their own destiny in venture, by virtue of how they commit. And now is the time to commit to venture with more discretion and expertise and hit the VC reset button.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Assets, Transparency, Subprime, Marketplace, Meritocracy

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I could not help but chuckle (again) when Oracle's 30-year-running CEO, Larry Ellison (full disclosure) fiercely yelled out the words from the title of this blog, referring to the artificial arbitration of innovation applied by Venture Capitalists (VCs) we talk about in this blog so often.

Sand Hill Road, for those unfamiliar is the street in Menlo Park, California where the majority of Silicon Valley VC enjoy some of the most expensive office rent in the country and invite their often starving entrepreneurs to "beg" for money. The area is considered the birthplace of Venture Capital.

Larry goes on to say that Venture Capitalists think that innovation is like coming up with a new technology buzzword, expressing his specific dismay with the term cloud computing (watch the Churchill Club interview on YouTube, skip to 47:53 min if you don't like boating).

The reason why I bring that up is four-fold:

1. Entrepreneurs are subject to this artificial arbitration (that is applied with the seasonality and commonality of fashion) as the primary method to get their high growth company funded. Entrepreneurs think that "wisdom" leads to success, yet deplorable VC returns prove otherwise.
2. Limited Partners (LPs) seem to respond commensurate with their limited allocation in venture (usually less than 15% of total allocation) and their natural inclination is to rest with the excuses (we debunked) from VCs, who never fail to reiterate that cyclical behavior of the financial markets and the economy are to blame for the deplorable returns in venture.
3. VCs are downplaying the systemic risk of this artificial arbitration (applied by the venture investor cartel) to our government, stating that $200B of venture investments pose less systemic risk than other asset classes, while completely ignoring that their behavior kills the meritocracy and innovative culture our country was founded upon.
4. Other VCs in the country (and around the world) copy the tactics of Silicon Valley investors, with similar results awaiting them.

But feel free not take my word for it. Agreeing with Larry Ellison, Mike Moritz, one of Silicon Valley's most lauded VCs was recently heard saying the Venture Capital business has been broken for twenty years. So do similarly successful venture peers Vinod Khosla and Greg Lamond, who believe - like we do - that when the risk is sucked out of investing, one should not expect great returns.

Still not listening? Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton universities all appear to be suffering from significant losses to their endowment as a result of investments in "alternative" assets, which includes venture capital. To combat, according to PE Hub, Stanford has just raised a $1 billion in a bond offering last April in case of a “true emergency".

By the way: with those Ivy League universities having bred the most renowned economists and professors in entrepreneurship does anyone question whether their expertise is worth the tuition? Are the experts really what they claim?

How much exactly of that depressing news can be contributed to the performance of Venture Capital is not clear to me today (Hedge funds and Private Equity are the most common other assets) yet reports from both CalPERS and CalSTRS pension funds suggest a lackluster contribution of VC across the venture spectrum.

Deaf? Many of my peers in executive positions at Apple, Cisco, Oracle, HP, eBay refuse to enter the venture fray in which the equilibrium of entrepreneur and investor is completely out of whack. The cyclical nature of the downward sub-prime spiral continues to rear its ugly head. The only entrepreneurs that submit to sub-prime investments today are as sub-prime as their investors, incapable of building great fund performance.

The alarm bells are ringing. Limited Partners need to wake up, simply because of the loud reverberation of a vast preponderance of circumstantial evidence. It is time for LPs to listen, not to popular opinion from the people who got them in this financial debacle in the first place, but to people who offer ideas that simply serve entrepreneurs better. The time for change is now.

Passively waiting for consensus on data driven views is guaranteed to lead us to what Larry referred to as an L-shape recovery in the venture business.

Tags: Oracle, VC, Silicon Valley, Innovation, Limited Partners, Subprime

By Georges van Hoegaerden

[The article has been supplemented by a more recent "Why VCs really need relevant operational experience, now"]

I frequently get asked by individual Venture Capitalists (VCs) whether I really think General Partners (GPs) need operating experience to be more effective (as if my blog is not clear about that). And just recently HP's Venture Group seems to agree with me.

That topic was also recently challenged by Daniel Primack from Reuters' PEHub (I know he likes a good debate) who decided to make a statistical point that there is no correlation between fund success and GP operating experience.

Yet my short answer is: "yes, but it depends".

What my answer does not depend on is Daniel's statistical analysis of the Forbes Midas List and loosely matching credentials to his sample. With more than 90% of VC not making a real profit (above the asset class expectation of it), the 10% Midas sample can hardly be called statistically representative. And even if it would, a highly inefficient market (created by the ineffective "dating service" VCs currently provide) does not statistically represent the workings of the efficient market we wish for. And the majority of the Midas List GPs have their "success" firmly rooted in a timeframe when "turkeys could fly". Should I go on?

But most importantly, statistics are derivatives - not drivers - of market behavior, in the same way liabilities and assets are opposites (read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"). It is unwise to apply a derivative (statistic) as a driver for market decisions. All experienced entrepreneurs know that.

So, my answer depends on whether you reference the actual or supposed workings of VC.

In today's VC

In today's venture capital ecosystem it is very important for every GP to have relevant operating experience, with the emphasis on relevant. Relevant experience as that of an early-stage CEO in tough times, still producing success.

Many GPs can only flaunt past experience from behind the confines of a large brand name conglomerate, rather than the experience of an early-stage CEO, investing his own money, defining a unique company ecosystem, living on borrowed time, raising a few rounds and selling the company. The VCs with that level of operating experience are hard to find and so are their successes.

Why is VC operating experience important:
1/ Many venture funded companies today are built with what I coin as the sub-prime VC model. Amongst many things it means founders need to prove a lot of technological capabilities (see my Khosla reference) before they see an investment dime, and when so, usually receive too little money to hire an experienced CEO. As a result, the board (of investors) runs the startup and thus their relevant operating experience becomes pivotal to the success of the startup.

2/ Relevant operating experience matters, not just any operating experience. Successful startups rely on a clear definition of a unique ecosystem (with divisional expenditures and conversion rates). The last thing an entrepreneur needs is a group of investors who can barely deviate from their business school thesis to meet reality and a world that is in flux.

3/ GPs need to be entrepreneurial to recognize and weigh one. The success of a technology startup is not just dependent on how cool the technology is but requires an operational assessment to figure out whether the business model is sustainable, and whether the application of that technology to a demographic makes economic sense. Operating experience is crucial to validate the combined value of operations and innovation.

I can name probably a hundred other reasons, but that would extend beyond the artificial limit of this blog and your patience.

In new VC

In a new VC structure I would argue for a more balanced makeup of economic managers and operational managers. But that structure can only work when all GPs share responsibility for every deal, rather than today's norm of every GP managing his own subset of companies within the portfolio. Many more things need to change in order for VCs to accurately calculate startup risk, snippets of which I've covered elsewhere in this blog and will cover extensively in my upcoming LP seminar "The Inconvenient Truth of Venture Capital".

Alignment with the entrepreneurs

So, until we change the fundamental workings of VC are we bound to hire GPs with relevant operating experience, those that combine that operating experience with the ability to accurately calculate upside risk and align with the entrepreneur.

But a VC firm without relevant operating experience is a risky investment (for LPs) and a bad strategic partner for the entrepreneur. The great difference between Private Equity and its sub-class Venture Capital is that the latter can create massive returns, albeit with GPs that are capable of recognizing a diamond-in-the-rough and performing a little bit of heavy lifting when needed or desired; by applying experience and influence.

That, as an operator, makes Venture Capital so much fun for me.

Tags: Eco-systems, Subprime, PE Week, Innovation, Experience, VC, Business Model, Limited Partners, Entrepreneurs

By Georges van Hoegaerden

The biggest complaint I hear and agree with is that Venture Capitalists (VCs) just don't get it and in the words of a VP at Apple, VCs simply don't line up with the needs of entrepreneurs.

Real innovation has no precedent and leaves many VCs, with their platitudes and an army of analytics in the dark in coming up with a reliable reason to invest. I personally had a VC become teary-eyed about the prospect of having to convince the rest of his team about an investment I presented, and I subsequently got it funded elsewhere.

With monetary assets being equal, it takes a visionary or a black swan (whichever classification floats your boat) to separate the good investor from the bad. Great investors have a strong belief that finds solace in an internal compass that is fine-tuned by years of risk-taking. Risk-taking in entrepreneurship or personal life, whichever one shaped that core competency. We have many VCs with strong beliefs, but few of those beliefs are founded on relevant experience.

So, entrepreneurs (and LPs) take note of what is the most important ingredient to look for in the bios of General Partners (GPs). With few exceptions, a GP (General Partner) that has never been a CEO at a startup, responsible for developing and executing its unique ecosystem, is not a great candidate to become a VC. Neither is the GP who has never challenged him/herself personally.

Venture Capital is government

But not only are those investors hard to find, the physical makeup and workings of the current VC construct is diametrically contradicting the decision-making for groundbreaking innovation. As long as the meritocracy at the VC level of the investment pyramid that started Venture Capital is not restored, the artificial arbitration of the current aristocratic model will continue to erode high yield returns.

Here is how VC acts like government:

1/ You (still) need to be in Silicon Valley

Just like you need to be in DC to make an impact on politics, do you need to be within 20 minutes of Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park to be on the radar of investors.

2/ You need an intro to the VC

In DC you need lobbyists to get anywhere, in Silicon Valley you need to find similar lobbyists that can introduce you to the investor you want to talk to. Most GPs simply refuse to talk with entrepreneurs they have not met before. Entrepreneurs who contact VCs directly will find themselves debating the vision with an academic white swan, dramatically improving their chance to get rejected.

3/ Investment decisions require internal consensus

Politics is based on consensus. Likewise, if the entrepreneur is lucky to convince one GP of their proposition, the next monday morning meeting at the VC firm is spent on getting other GPs to agree (except if the first GP is of John Doerr stature). In essence it means a unique invention is shoved through a democratic (government) filter to be validated with chances of a majority vote rapidly approaching zero.

4/ Deal syndication requires external consensus

Many VCs don't have the balls (excusé les mots) to make independent contributions to companies and look for syndication to mitigate the risk. Just like in DC where politicians look for peers to join their charter, before they stick their necks out.

5/ Lack of accountability

VCs can hide behind the size of the portfolio to select one or two successes to brag about. Just like politicians that hide behind a party and associate themselves with many initiatives and get credit for the few that worked. Quite opposite to the devotion of an entrepreneur.

6/ Lack of transparency

To understand politics you need a graduate degree in the subject matter, to understand VC you need to be (or have been) one. Just because the type of businesses VC invests in are private, that doesn't mean VC needs to be.

7/ Far removed from its constituents

Not only physically but spiritually many politicians are far removed from their constituents when they enter into office. So are the VCs who prefer to congregate more with each other than with entrepreneurs to develop unique support for disruptive innovation. VCs are oblivious to the many "false negatives" (as described in my previous blog) they don't even get to see, just as many politicians forget that many americans don't vote at all.

8/ Fewer real innovations are born here

DC (at least before Barack) is not the place to get anything done, and Silicon Valley choking on a vast supply of sub-prime VC is not the place to get anything really disruptive done. The real world is the market, not the current VC interpretation of it.

9/ Long incubation periods

Just like in politics, once the GP secures a fund with the LP the performance of the fund is in limbo for 5-10 years. That is a more secure job than the presidency of the United States. Many GPs stack funds or jump ship before it is about to go under, picking up new management fees under a different fund and LP structure. Another 5-10 years of GP safety lies ahead.

10/ External circumstances

Just like in politics, VCs blame their underperformance on anything else but their own decision making. The state of the economy is their welcome excuse, even though startup economics are quite resilient to macro economic aberrations.

So, the point of this blog is to emphasize that in order to get VC to create high yield returns we not only need to take a close look at the GPs that take the risk but change the mechanics of VC from a "government" based system to a meritocracy at the VC level of the investment pyramid. That is the message I will develop further (and more constructively, I've hammered on VC enough) in helping individual LPs develop new relationships with VC firms.

Tags: VC, Limited Partners, Risk, Funds, CEO, Entrepreneurs, Subprime

By Georges van Hoegaerden

The debate is heating up about the impending regulations from the government applied to Private Equity (PE) and its sub-class Venture Capital (VC), fought by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and reluctantly supported by the Private Equity Council (PEC). The latter stating that private equity does not represent a systemic risk. Perhaps not, if the council excludes VC from its membership, but VC as Private Equity poses a systemic risk as the gatekeeper to innovation.

Why the government is forced to step in

The government has decided to step in and we, as participants in the ecosystem should present our government with the facts (good and bad) so it can make informed decisions going forward. If we give the government self-serving information, rather than the facts, we will get punished by regulations that miss their intended target. So, now is the time to separate greed from honesty and shape the regulations that will be bestowed upon us.

The most rational explanation as to why the government is tightening our private equity belts came from Bob Grady, Managing Partner at The Carlyle Group (who worked for the government for a while) at the recent IBF conference. He suspects that the government simply wants to reduce the size of the financial services industry as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Not unreasonable, considering the collapse of our financial system and the discovery of an endless supply of imploding derivatives (and vice-versa). Simply put, the equilibrium between people who create products and those that capitalize on them is out of whack. We need more innovation with fewer derivatives attached to them.

VC is a systemic risk

The creation and growth of the Internet (and all the components around it) could not have existed without the faith and dollars from Limited Partners (LP), deploying their assets through VC firms. Kudos to people like IBF life-time award winner Bill Draper who started Venture Capital by literally knocking on the door of an interesting company, buying his first shares for $20,000. But the last nine years have been dismal for VC performance, almost 900 U.S. VCs producing less than 10% IRR, tarnishing the technology ecosystem and prompting LPs to look around to reallocate money to a different asset class.

Why VC needs to work

While venture-backed companies represent around 0.02% of GDP prior to exit, post exit they represent about 18% of GDP (according to the NVCA) and 9% of jobs in America. So, the decision-making process by a VC of what company to invest in is vital to building a healthy economic conversion rate. And I predict information technology will claim a larger stake of GDP as it continues to mature from its infancy. So while VC is a small percentage of the total Private Equity pie invested, it has proven its ability to produce a healthy stimulus to the economy.

What has changed

We can look at the statistics from the NVCA and debunk those statistics with reality, but common sense tells us that most of us would be hard pressed to name ten ground-breaking technology innovations in the last ten years. So, if 900 VCs produce this few real innovations, the billowing smoke is sufficient indication of a fire. On top of that companies like Apple show us how to invest in categories (like music) VCs had unsuccessfully invested in for the last 10 years, challenging VC fundamentals to its core.

Proper assessment of investment risk

The problem with VC is that it is inherently risky (more than other forms of Private Equity) and with the wrong people running VC firms, the asset - risk - that produces great returns is being sucked out of the investment equation.

Smaller funds, feverish syndications, easy exits are all instruments that create more rather than less derivatives to the creation of disruptive value. VCs now sell to LPs a similarly ill-fated pattern of risk as sub-prime lenders sold to their investors. Hence our frequent use of the sub-prime VC classification throughout this blog.

As a result of a lack of meaningful segmentation and guard rails by many me-too VC funds, LPs have actually invested deep rather than wide in information technology (as the included chart points out). For the last nine years that has created a massive number of false positives and false negatives and a continued downward spiral that attracts only entrepreneurs that comply with this risk-deflated investment mold, rather than attract entrepreneurs with truly disruptive ideas (that hold their value in any economy). So, for the last 9 years LPs have invested deep in a risk-averse technology sector while they expected their 10-15% venture share of total allocations to be applied to the inverse.

Moving forward

Many LPs are ready to cut all but their top quartile VC funds from their portfolio by flushing them through (i.e. letting them run their course without re-upping new commitments). That means over the next 5 years we are going to see many VC firms disappear, some replaced with new VC firms with more relevant entrepreneurial pedigree and investment models that are as unique as the strategies of the entrepreneurs.

New regulations by the government and tougher practices by LPs will make our industry more transparent and aim to create a platform in which the old aristocratic VC model will be replaced by a model that supports a meritocracy at every level of the investment pyramid. That is a fantastic development for entrepreneurs and VCs who are attracted by - and deserve - the merit.

Big stakes, big returns, fewer players, better innovation

LPs expect bigger returns (before larger commitments) from their allocation in venture and the only way to get it is to deploy risk. VC is designed to be the intermediary between the LP and the entrepreneur to mitigate that risk for LPs. Yet because of the aforementioned commoditization of VC investment strategies the VC model has failed to produce.

With LPs retrenching (to perhaps another asset class), the VC firm that wants to survive better articulate a clearly differentiated investment strategy with new GPs that can recognize and attract more disruptive (and sustainable) innovation, knows how to commit and helps make its portfolio companies work.

A new day

To create better returns for LPs, VCs need to rethink how to pick better companies with more disruptive (and sustainable) innovation and invest in upside rather than downside. The smart entrepreneurs are out there (we talk to them), waiting patiently for the right investment climate to light up their flame. Remember, great innovation can afford to be patient.

Venture Capital as the derivative in the investment pyramid between the assets of the LPs (money) and the assets of the entrepreneur (innovation) needs to provide a better service to both parties (or else it will be tossed out as a "dating service").

Until we fix VC, will it remain a systemic risk to our asset class, economy and frankly our reputation as the most innovative country in the world.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Apple, Subprime, Innovation, Funds, NVCA, GDP, Commodity, Investment, Integrity

By Georges van Hoegaerden

That's how one of the many CEOs that contact me recently described his colleagues who submit to Venture Capital (VC).

This alternatively funded CEO describes other CEO’s that seek VC funding as idiots – with a 1 in a 1000 shot at a lousy valuation (52% Round A, 25% Round B and 15% Round C). He continues that many of the serial entrepreneurs trumpeted by VC’s have no money themselves despite “successful” previous exits.

He is not alone about the ineffectiveness of Venture Capital, I frequently hear from other successful entrepreneurs about it. And the situation may get worse before it gets better. The economy is offering VCs even more excuses to turn the screws, and control of companies is gained in more ways than a simple equity stake.

I believe technology investing today is largely a sub-prime asset class as described in a plethora of sub-prime articles in this blog, and find many entrepreneurs discouraged by both the process as well as the outcome of fundraising, even when that yielded a round.

Because of the ineffectiveness of VC and the rampant false positives and false negatives I refuse to believe VCs (and the NVCA collectively), who suggest that the sum of Venture Capital equals the sum of technology innovation. We see great entrepreneurs actively pursuing more creative investment vehicles (high-net-worth individuals, private equity firms, investment bankers, sovereign funds...anyone with money), and rightfully so.

In the meantime, oblivious to recognizing their own flaws, VCs are further descending down the sub-prime spiral by restricting investments to compliant entrepreneurs, evidence that they remain clueless about the fundamental risk management of high yield returns.

Smart CEOs should simply refuse to work with many technology investors for the following reasons:

- Exorbitant loss of upside
Great entrepreneurs are known for their passion to pursue their dreams at virtually any cost, and sub-prime VCs smell their blood and desperation. Those companies become owned by VCs quickly and because of the investors' lack of relevant operating experience yields a further deflation of the valuation of the company. We've seen many companies with end-game founder stock way below 5%, which is unlikely to become life-changing. So, why would you take the scrutiny of the CEO job with that outcome in mind?

- Indirect loss of control
Voting rights as well as other fine print in the termsheet severely impact your ability as a CEO to disrupt a market. While in the beginning the founders may still own the majority of the shares, the dependance on further runway support gives VCs the ammo to press their preferred operational trajectory and leaves operational decisions at the mercy of its first investors.

- Restrictive expenditures
The powers of the CEO are further restricted by clauses on expenditures in either the articles of incorporation, termsheets, voting rights or other legal documents. We've seen restrictions requiring board approval for expenditures as little as $5,000. That means a CEO can't make pressing decisions until a next board meeting or when there is an ability to call an impromptu session. These restrictions are further evidence that a CEO does not have the trust of the board.

- Insufficient ecosystem control
Investors typify investments in technology waves (witnessed by their mindless herding at technology focused events) and blindly allocate certain expenditure expectations to R&D, marketing, business development and sales divisions. But the ecosystem of every company, regardless of segment, is unique to that company. CEOs who let VCs determine or validate the ecosystem expenditures will spend the subsequent board meetings explaining why they deviated from that, a waste of precious time.

- Deal with undeserved authority
Many VCs do not have the credentials and relevant operating experience to lead an experienced CEO. Yet it behooves the CEO to listen to the idiosyncrasies of the VC in order for them to endorse a CEO's leadership. Nothing is worse for a company's future than having to wait for the investor to validate every step along the way.

- Micro-economically sandwiched
Technology founders and VCs are often focused on building technology, very few investors pay close attention to the macro-economic differentiation (and valuation), leaving intelligent CEO left to drive a more sustainable big picture strategy with limited board and back-end support.

- Forced syndicates
Investors with early stakes can essentially force the company to engage with other VCs in subsequent rounds that favor the initial investor, rather than the entrepreneur. Many VCs huddle together in like-minded "vulture" strategies in the hopes of maximizing their often ill-performing portfolio.

- Damaging to reputation
The valley is so small and ignoring the advice from an investor can have detrimental effect on a CEO's future career. The "you will never work in this town again" syndrome is not unique to Hollywood, it is alive and well in Silicon Valley. The word spreads quickly when you challenge VCs and don't accept their terms, a reason why they tell you not to shop valuations around - it will actually hurt you.

- Sticky lawyers
We've inherited bad ones in companies we ran and found some good ones. But in many cases lawyers in Silicon Valley pretend they actually created the companies, simply because they filed their incorporation paperwork or attended board meetings. They mingle with the money sources and make the introduction to VCs that secure their billing runway. They end up getting cosy with the major shareholders and tilting the balance even further away from the CEO who signs their checks. Another entity to keep in check as a CEO.

- Low salary
Opportunity rather than salary is top of mind to entrepreneurs, but that changes quickly when they struggle to support their families and pay mortgages. $175K is not a salary that leaves much on the table, especially not when you live in the expensive area around Sandhill Road. And VCs are challenging those salaries even more while they are raking in astronomical fees associated with their large funds and sitting pretty for the next ten years. The risk/reward equation between VC and entrepreneur is completely out of whack.

- Poor severances
Board-run companies leave CEOs in a vulnerable state once its collective wisdom does not pan out. The blame for that failure is usually generously applied to the CEO, while the decision making power was not. An early stage CEO should consider himself lucky if the company can still honor its pre-negotiated severance obligation.

Pimps and Hoes

The current venture climate reminds me of the fascinating HBO documentary Pimps Up, Hoes Down in which the undeserved authority of Pimps is applied to the Hoes who do all the (dirty) work.

No self respecting CEO should accept the constriction deployed by sub-prime Venture Capital as described above. The outcome of the current entrepreneurial restrictions is not only highly predictable but has thankfully reached the balance sheets of fund-managers and Limited Partners, who fund the VCs and are starting to question the role of the VC as the intermediary.

The downturn in the economy masks the unrelated impending implosion of Venture Capital. No VC should use the economy as the excuse for the restrictions above and as a CEO you should read its deployment for what it is; a diminished faith in you and the company.

So, unless you can reach a great VC independently or with help from others quickly, my suggestion is to wait with testing your CEO skills until Venture Capital, not the economy recovers. If you can.

In the meantime I'll do my best to help fund-managers revive Venture Capital. It is about time the fund-managers hear the entrepreneur's point of view. That has become my new mission.

Tags: NVCA, CEO, VC, Valuation, Limited Partners, Economy, Subprime, Macro-economics

By Georges van Hoegaerden

As regular readers of my blog you are aware of my criticism towards the current operators of the Venture Capital (VC) microcosm.

I often liken todays Venture Capital business to the sub-prime lending business where too many people without the skills to assess risk accurately, put the whole technology ecosystem at risk.

My comments can be perceived as negative, yanking the chain of 700+ U.S. venture capitalists of which many use sub-prime tactics. Or they can be perceived as positive, with the majority of those investors looking the other way now is a great time to start a new investment vehicle (more on that later) that returns to Limited Partners (LPs) the allocation in the technology asset class they were promised.

A new group I see springing up are the people who use the negative interpretation to chastise the US as a whole, extrapolating that the US is "losing ground internationally on multiple technological fronts". That is where, with my international experience (an expat ready to naturalize) in tow, I need to put a full-stop to the criticism against this country.

Here is why:

1/ Not only does the U.S. represent a great breading ground for investing in innovation but more importantly, the US represents a societal curiosity to adopt and purchase those unproven innovations like no other country in the world. Technology investments will collagulate where the early buyers are.

2/ The U.S. has the uncanning ability to bounce back because in essence, every citizen is an entrepreneur (forced perhaps by the lack of safety nets). It may not be easy to bounce back but adaptability is part of this country's DNA - not so elsewhere.

3/ Investors in the U.S. have a short term memory, they need to put their money "to work". Technology remains a very interesting asset class because of its early potential, low cost, quick impact and large scale. So, with new risk assessment criteria for VC funds in place, new investments will flow again quickly. BTW: those investors (LPs) are not just american, the amount of sovereign funds investing in U.S. technology is significant and growing (not in the least because of bullet 1).

The United States will remain at the forefront of technology innovation if it acts on critical opinions that lead to improved self-regulation. We, collectively need to turn the current technology "investment club" into a free-market that embraces the curiosity and meritocracy that this country was founded upon.

The VC business will re-invent itself, either by people like me who aim to expose and correct its current flaws or (a few years later) by the Limited Partners who invested in VC firms with suboptimal returns. Either way, no innovation exists without induction of significant pain or gain.

Have no doubt that like many other innovations globally, the reinvention of the VC business will start right here in the U.S. and produce a whole new batch of disruptive and exciting innovations.

Tags: VC, Innovation, Funds, Free-market, Risk, Subprime, Startup, Limited Partners

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Pierre Lamond, a Silicon Valley legend who has been a Sequoia partner at the Menlo Park, Calif.-based Venture Capital (VC) firm since 1981 has decided to join Khosla Ventures, primarily to do what Venture Capital was designed to do, take risks again.

Having hit on subprime VC for a few years now, his reasoning resonated with me and I looked back at Vinod Khosla's "New old-fashioned" model for Venture Capital, he describes in his 2002 presentation as "Funding to Milestones", as depicted below:



Now compare the above chart with the one right below, the VC model practiced by the majority of current Venture Capitalists today, which I refer to as subprime VC:



What quickly becomes apparent from the latter chart (derived from actual pitches between entrepreneurs and VC) is that supported by the excuse of lower development costs related to web2.0 technologies, the investors have pushed down the majority of the risk onto the entrepreneur.

We all know by know that Web2.0 is not a business and still requires the definition of a disruptive business that does not fundamentally yield lower operating cost, but much more disturbing is how investors have reduced their risk and delayed their active participation with a company that, in the end, actually produces lower exits (investors are now satisfied with a 2x rather than 10x return) and no IPOs. We explained in our previous blog how that strategy cannot save Venture Capital funds.

While statistically we can time-shift the sub-prime chart to the left and assume nothing has changed by holding up the Moneytree reports, anyone who has walked around in Silicon Valley as long as I have, knows what is really going on under the hood.

Unlike people like Vinod Khosla who can assess technology risk before it is build, the majority of investors can't envision an opportunity until they spot it in their rearview mirror. Today, investors demonstrate by their actions (or lack thereof) what is fundamentally flawed in Venture Capital; the lack of people that can accurately assess risk. In 5-years our economy will be in better shape than it has been, leaner and meaner. Technology opportunities are and will be abound, as it is in the early stages of penetration. This is indeed a time for aggressive investing, rather than a time for crawl-back we see some VCs do.

The sub-prime VC problem will remain when the economy recovers, if it is not aggressively perforated by people with real early-stage operating experience who understand that risk is the lifeline of Venture Capital - and join the investment fray.

Stop blaming the economy and take a risk, everyday. Only then will you get better at it.

(I will explain the sub-prime chart in more detail later)

Tags: Subprime, VC, Valuation, Risk, Startup

By Georges van Hoegaerden

About one year ago I attended a great session with Limited Partners (LPs) to VC firms, the Carlyle Group's Bob Grady and fund managers from Hamilton Lane and SFERS in San Francisco.

At the time I was impressed with the rationale behind a deliberate slowdown in new VC fund investments, yet every fund manager assured that the technology asset class remained an interesting one that LPs cannot afford not to participate in. The group as a whole emphasized that the new VC funds being deployed must prove substantial differentiation in its investment strategy, not unlike an entrepreneur needs to prove a similar aggressive differentiation to win market share.

With that in mind you may just be as amused as I am to see the "duh" investment strategy explained in this private placement memorandum (PPM) from a triple digit fund in early 2000:

• Market capitalization at IPO of $1 billion or more
• Rapid growth and very large potential market size
• Leveraged customer acquisition strategies: the business is able to take advantage of established customer bases, “network” economics, or powerful “viral” strategies to acquire customers at modest up-front cost
• Scalable business models
• Robust economic models: significant margin generation with potential for self-funding in year 3 or before.
• Significant competitive advantages based on such factors as proprietary technology, establishment of industry standards, customer investment in applications and/or user interfaces, or winner-take-all economics (i.e., the market is a natural monopoly)
• The opportunity to create leverage vis-à-vis suppliers and customers by virtue of efficiency advantage, neutrality, scope of business, and hard-to-replicate investments

I have seen quite a few other PPMs since and the resemblance is remarkable. No surprise that VCs have had the flexibility to latch-on to every new technology acronym, using whatever allocation per company they desire and invest in virtually any technology company that comes their way. And so they did.

They all did. In pretty much the same way, as lemmings are known to do. So now, we are over-invested in the same deal constructs (deep, see the investment atrophy described here), and under-invested in the full scope of technology innovation. As a result, large technology companies (such as Apple) are eating early-stage disruptive innovation for lunch, leaving the little deals for the bottom-feeder (sub-prime) VCs that count themselves blessed investing in "capital efficient" deals with little disruptive value, let alone IPO prospects.

No longer can fund investments be made using a single yard-stick.

LPs need to take better control of the segmentation in the technology asset class especially since maturing technology evolution will have its feet in every market segment, including crossovers to other asset classes.

VC funds need to be pushed apart to yield less overlap and provide complementary investment strategies rather than an 80% overlap. That, with the requirement to start new VC funds with GPs that actually have had early-stage CEO operating success, allows VCs to better align with the needs of the entrepreneur and fundamentally improve the chances for high-yield returns.

Tags: Limited Partners, VC, Subprime, CEO, PPM

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Sub-prime Venture Capital is akin to the sub-prime lending market and we predict the bottom will soon fall out of sub-prime VC too, spurred by the fear of economic pressure and the depressing returns of expiring post 911 venture funds.

Just like working for Carnival Cruise looks glamorous but is not the way to explore the world, unsuspecting young entrepreneurs who fall for sub-prime investors will soon find out that building those technologies has all the glamour but few of the rewards associated with innovation. Regardless, many chasing the mighty dollar will fall for it.

Here is how entrepreneurs can recognize a sting from subprime VC:
Step 1: We like the idea, but before we invest please finish the product some more, then come back
Step 2: 6 Months later, you finished the product. Great, now prove it works by getting 100,000 daily users, then come back
Step 3: Fantastic, now we'll take 60% of your company for $1M

Ouch, that hurts.

Here is why sub-prime tactics hurt our innovative ecosystem, just like sub-prime lendings have a negative effect on the housing market as a whole.

ad 1/ Technology development is the investment risk we understand quite well, timely applicability to a market is the real issue. So, proving that the entrepreneur can build a product can easily be derived from the entrepreneur's vision, knowledge and credentials in that space, juiced up with some kitchen-sink prototyping. On top of that a 6-month self-funded development timeframe with 2-3 developers can hardly yield a sustainable competitive advantage anyway, so R&D development proves nothing.

ad 2/ In many cases it is impossible to land 100,000 users before you have a critical mass of product capabilities. That critical mass comes from an R&D investment that generates substantial differentiation, and rarely from tip-toeing into the marketplace. Marketplaces, for example, only grow when a critical mass of both supply and demand are lured in and participate, which often requires a bolstering of technology to support all constituents, rather than minimizing it. Already, too many technology products enter the market unfinished as a result of underfunding and yield false negatives.

ad 3/ Control and valuation of the company are a direct indication of the future success of an early-stage company. The vast majority of technology success stories are derived from retained majority control by its founders and CEO (Facebook, Google, Twitter, eBay etc). Investors are terrible operators (no surprise given their background and experience) and should not want to own a majority stake in their companies, simply out of self-preservation.

Additionally, the danger of these tactics deployed by sub-prime investors (many of the large venture funds deploy fashionable sub-prime tactics too) is that it marginalizes technology innovation and provides a very unstable breeding ground for the fund performance as well:

a/ Venture Capital is meant to stimulate the high-risk / high-yield asset class as defined by its Limited Partners, the sub-prime strategy described here (anecdotally) serves nothing more than low-risk / low-yield segment of the technology asset class.

b/ No fund larger than $100 Million can support the management attention needed to spur these tiny injections along. As a result sub-prime investors just constricted what they thought of interesting innovation with too little time and too little money to provide critical market entry.

c/ Very few low cost entry deals yield the disruption that prices out favorably to makes any dent in the return of the fund as a whole. Venture funds need few big returns to keep LPs coming back for more.

The only early-stage investors who may be able to turn sub-prime deals into prime are the investors who:
- have proven to be successful operators themselves
- support the vision before the product is there
- have great syndicates to support the full runway of a disruptive market entry going forward.

Investors that can turn sub-prime into prime can be counted on one, maybe two hands. People like Marc Andreessen with his new AZ (Andreessen-Horowitz) fund come to mind. But entrepreneurs who are not stung by these visionary investors may just as well hop on that cruise ship and enjoy life some more.

The economics of big technology plays have not suddenly changed, the cost of developing technology may have declined slightly but simultaneously competition has increased exponentially. So, we prefer to focus on plays that are high-risk and high-yield simply because only they create the disruptive innovation that can keep VC firms in business.

The challenge for early-stage entrepreneurs remains the same, to create unbridled and disruptive innovation that finds only one investor that believes in it. If many more do, believe me, the technology is just not disruptive enough. So, be ready for some controversy.

Finding the right investor, amongst 700+ firms in the U.S. requires that entrepreneurs understand and can read the dating game. If they don't, we'll be happy to help. But get to us before you've been stung 217 times.

Tags: Subprime, VC, Innovation, FaceBook, Google, Twitter, Startup, Investment Banks, EBay, Revenues, Valuation, Disruption, LP, Funds

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Retail store decorations reminded me that easter is approaching and that set off the memory of an easter egg chart (on the right) I received from an early stage entrepreneur who had been trying to raise money over the past 12 months. In many ways the chart indicates how the Venture Capital (VC) world is filled with the wrong operators (not a lack of money), incapable of assessing risk; I will clarify later.

The enclosed chart includes the names of every investor (VC and Angels) the entrepreneur has spoken to face-to-face (in dark green), conversed through e-mail (in light green) and is scheduled to connect with (in orange).

Needless to say the 217 investors (whom I will not disclose yet, to protect the entrepreneur) that bothered to meet face-to-face include pretty much anyone who means anything in the VC business.

Helped by a tiny amount of seed money and introductions from a well known and respected investor, most investors responded enthusiastically (according to the entrepreneur), yet virtually none have bothered to provide the valuable feedback (or responded back with a decent no) that could lead to a line-of-sight of a term-sheet.

So, we conclude from this painstaking process the entrepreneur went through the following:

- Fundraising takes time, a lot of time
Even with the introduction from a well known VC, carve out one year of your life to raise virtually nothing (a million or so). Most entrepreneurs chase a dream that is chiseled from years of experience dealing with inefficiencies, only to discover that at fundraising time they don't understand (and don't want to understand) the VC microcosm that holds "innovations" hostage. We recommend entrepreneurs to start socializing the idea with VCs the minute they start writing code, to establish a clear target list of investors that can and should do the deal 9 months to a year later. One year ago I would have recommended the entrepreneur to sell his house and raise money that way, easier and better retention of control in the company.

- Investors don't treat entrepreneurs with the respect they deserve
Not responding to the entrepreneur (even when they share valuable connections together) as the majority of the investors on the enclosed chart did is the lowest form of disrespect imaginable. I have written about obnoxious VCs in this blog many times before (reinventing VC, subprime VC, LPs fooled, curse of subprime VC, investors to avoid) and would tell you that those over-inflated personalities contribute that I have no interest to belong to the current VC club (I have been asked). Clearly not everyone was raised by a grandfather (and co-founder of the Mentos candy) who taught us early on that you can be hard-nosed, respectful and successful all at the same time.

- The current crop of early-stage investors are numb
As you notice from the linkages in the chart (hard to see at 6% of original size), many investors have provided referrals to others. But referrals only happen when investors believe "there is something there" (one of their favorite phrases) and pass it along to another investor who may better understand the proposition. In an effective investor ecosystem and regardless of their belief in the proposition, the chart would never grow to be as large as it is. When investors don't like the proposition they will not pass it on, and when they do they will keep it to themselves and work out a deal. So, the sheer size of this chart communicates really well how clueless our current VC microcosm is.

- The current crop of early-stage investors simply don't understand the technology business
The fact that this entrepreneur is thrown around like a rag-doll by some of the biggest "experts" in the VC business says it all. The investor's indecisiveness is an indication of their lack of knowledge and vision that has earned them such a prominent role in the innovation of our industry. But, the best investors weigh risk, they do not need to deliver vision. Experienced entrepreneurs do not need investors to hold their hands in understanding the technology business and just need their investors to get out of the way.

- The current crop of early-stage investors are cowards
There is nothing, I repeat, nothing wrong with a VC saying no, whatever the investor's rational. But this chart shows how none of them can decide on their own - either way. These investor cannot stand to lose a deal they may miss out on (and not saying no will keep that door open), and don't have the guts to take the risk if they thought otherwise. It takes a strong character to be a VC, not an insecure and arrogant one.

- The current crop of early-stage investors are lemmings in rudeness
We knew that they were lemmings already, but now we know they will not only decide to jump off the cliff together but also share incredible rudeness. A sad state of being. No entrepreneur should sign any of these people on to their boards, because if they were not rude to them yet, that behavior will undoubtedly pop up when they least expect it.

- Entrepreneurs need a professional agent
Talking to this many investors and not yielding any takers is creating the smell of a dead fish in the venture community. While great successes like Skype required talks with reportedly about 40 investors and I did 20 on one of mine, the entrepreneur should have forced an early feedback loop with some investors before proceeding to talk to any more. The entrepreneur should pick an advisor or agent that does not allow this to go on for so long. It is sad that we are beginning to look an awful lot like Hollywood to become effective.

Now, notice that I have not discussed the specific proposition of the entrepreneur here and we may actually side with the VCs unable to extract razor-sharp focus from this entrepreneur's broad tale (but we will have the courtesy to tell him that directly). But the validity of the proposition is beside the point made here. Entrepreneurs, while they eat away their family's life savings and make considerable personal sacrifices, deserve the straight talk to help them plan their resources.

It is even more appalling that without any serious feedback the only response from a few VCs is to come back later, build the base technology first (which the entrepreneur has done) and get a critical number of customers. As if at that time the entrepreneur is in need of any fair-weather friends. The true character of the sub-prime VC is shining through again, but I am surprised it includes so many investors I thought better of. No wonder people like Umair Haque become even more enraged, describing VCs asleep at the wheel of creative destruction.

I would suggest the LPs (Limited Partners) to pull back from 80% of their current VC commitment (that are not producing returns anyway) and re-allocate the majority of that money to the creation of new VC firms that target more fundamental diversification in the technology asset class. I hereby offer my services to the LPs that want to take a hard look at that. And I would love to see the remainder of the current "prime VCs" be forced to re-invent themselves by this new influx in the same way entrepreneurs are all the time.

The only way to grow technology innovation is to force the VC business out of its current sub-prime mode and challenge the behavior of the crypt-keepers by making them highly accountable for their performance.

In the words of Ron Conway (a prominent angel investor) who recently stated "it is time for a new crop of entrepreneurs", we surmise "it is time for a new crop of investors" that attracts better innovation.

Tags: Fundraising, Disruption, Entrepreneurs, Subprime, Innovation, Investment, Digital Asset Management, Transparency, VC, Startup

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I am responding to an article written by Dan Primack at Reuters PEHub (where some of my articles are syndicated), pondering the question as to how to radically reinvent Venture Capital. To start offering a solution, we should look at the original promise of Venture Capital (VC).

Let’s not forget: Venture Capital exists by virtue of great entrepreneurs building highly monetizable innovations.

With that in mind it may sound weird that many VCs are obnoxious, pompous, rude and anything but transparent to entrepreneurs (even after they invest).

But it is really not such a big surprise. Subprime VC attracts subprime entrepreneurs ready to cash in on the hype and hence an overwhelming amount of pitch noise drowns out the music, leaving investors numb and unable to separate the two. And now, most of those VCs are debating whether a new VC firm structure or deal mechanics can fundamentally change the outcome of the game. It will not.

Since the beginning of 2000 VC performance is under water and that hurts. But just like un-inspirational politicians who can’t get legitimate voters to vote for them, un-inspirational VCs waiving an outdated rule-book around cannot attract great entrepreneurs. But don’t for a moment think the american entrepreneurial spirit is dead. It is not.

My top 3 (but I could easily list more) ways of how VC should change:

1/ Invest in macro-economics
Rather than invest in mindless technology classifications, certain macro-economic behaviors engrained in society for hundreds of years can be harvested with technology. Think premium “market” and free-market models, each has great potential depending on which product or service is being sold. The cyclical behavior of adoption can prohibit the success of either, no matter how good the technology. Studying the model and the reason for its receptiveness will be the first clue towards a fundable business.

2/ Invest in inefficient supply and demand
Regardless of technology, many technology segments that we discard off-hand as too difficult have not even reached maturity or dominance by a single player (achieving over 30% “market” share). Even the well publicized Personal Computer segment consists of over 40% fragmented ownership, let alone an untapped market of roughly 5B people on this planet that don’t use a computer today. But fragmentation is the ultimate indicator of under-served potential, it simply means the current capability is ineffective, opening new opportunities for a new solution (iPhone computer anyone?). So, get your facts straight.

3/ Invest in the application of technology
Many new lines of businesses can benefit from the infusion of technology innovation. If the application of technology yields dramatic bottom-line impact, and provides a sustainable roadmap, then how it is build (with what flavor of technology) at the moment of entry merely indicates the cost to improve the upward trajectory further. So, stop investing in technology, but invest in application of technology.

Those three points alone require a completely different assessment of the risk factors associated with innovation than the one I see Silicon Valley VCs apply today. Most investors have become risk adverse and invest based on cost rather than opportunity.

So, to reinvent venture capital we need to reinvent the people behind it. The mechanics and size of government is irrelevant if it does not affect the behavior of politicians that inspires people to vote. Similarly, the effectiveness of VC will not improve by changing fund size, deal staging, etc. (or escaping to a green-tech “bull” market, for that matter) unless the investors change their behavior that inspires the right people to innovate.

We need to bottom up VC. Investors need to become truly complimentary to great entrepreneurs and practice similar ethics, transparency, and perseverance traits to become valuable contributors to the innovative process that allows them to reap the rewards. Teams that can consistently yield a path to trustworthy IPOs will be charmed into even more lucrative acquisitions along the way.

It is a “buyer’s market” only for those investors who buy mediocre innovation. And mediocre innovation will not produce great fund returns. So, in the end, innovation remains a “seller’s market” - or no market at all.

Let’s not sit back and wait to find out which one it is going to be, as the writing is already on the wall. The time for VC to change and attract different innovation and entrepreneurs is now.

Tags: Subprime, Markets, IPhone, VC, Funds, Green Tech, Investment, Innovation, Limited Partners

By Georges van Hoegaerden

The subprime investment tactics by Venture Capitalists has a damaging impact on the returns provided to Limited Partners (those who provide the funds to the Venture Capital firms, such as pension-funds, university endowments, insurance companies etc.) and on the technology asset class as a whole.

We predict that as a result - and within 2 years, when the gestation period of the post 911 VC funds has expired LPs will dramatically reduce the inflow of moneys in the technology asset class, disappointed by unfavorable returns. To no fault of great entrepreneurs in this great country.

Here is how subprime VC fools LPs:
1/ The LPs believe they are investing in a premium technology asset class but in reality they are investing in an artificially constricted commoditized asset class we call bootstrapped innovation.
2/ The LPs believe they are investing in a high-risk high-yield asset class yet the VCs operate using low-risk (almost investment banking style) tactics with inherently low yields.
3/ The LPs believe they are spreading the risk by investing in multiple VC firms, not realizing that the majority of them invest using the same rule-book and therefor identical risk patterns. The LPs unknowingly are investing deeper rather than wider.

So, just like when my daughter behaves badly (rarely) and I need to take control of the situation, so must the LPs take control and tighten the leash with VC firms that are behaving “badly”. The behavior of my daughter (or dog if you consider that your child) is my responsibility, the behavior of VCs is an LP responsibility.

Here is what every LP should do right now:
1/ Bring every invested VC firm in and re-assess whether the invested amounts, category and valuations per portfolio company match the initially stated investment thesis and more importantly, your current risk profile across all assets.
2/ Ensure the spread between the investment in technologies versus the application of technologies to markets aligns with renewed opportunities and your current risk profile. The impact of technology has dramatically changed (rather than reduced), and many VCs are still stuck in the past.
3/ Hire an operational partner that establishes continuous oversight into the VC investment allocations (get one here) based on the risk and identity associated with each participating fund. That oversight should prevent the fund from investing outside the pre-established criteria.

Now is the time to reassess the investment opportunities in our technology industry. We believe the opportunities are abound, just not with the current investment tactics.

As Cesar Milan, a.k.a. the dog whisperer teaches us: its not too late to rescue any dog - as long as we can change the behavior of its caretaker. Similarly, it is not to late to improve entrepreneurialism if we change the behavior of its investors.

Tags: Subprime, Private Equity, VC, Entrepreneurs, Limited Partners, Subprime, Fundraising

By Georges van Hoegaerden

The subprime investment tactics by Venture Capitalists has a damaging impact on the returns provided to Limited Partners (those who provide the funds to the Venture Capital firms, such as pension-funds, university endowments, insurance companies etc.) and on the technology asset class as a whole.

We predict that as a result - and within 2 years, when the gestation period of the post 911 VC funds has expired LPs will dramatically reduce the inflow of moneys in the technology asset class, disappointed by unfavorable returns. To no fault of great entrepreneurs in this great country.

Here is how subprime VC fools LPs:
1/ The LPs believe they are investing in a premium technology asset class but in reality they are investing in an artificially constricted commoditized asset class we call bootstrapped innovation.
2/ The LPs believe they are investing in a high-risk high-yield asset class yet the VCs operate using low-risk (almost investment banking style) tactics with inherently low yields.
3/ The LPs believe they are spreading the risk by investing in multiple VC firms, not realizing that the majority of them invest using the same rule-book and therefor identical risk patterns. The LPs unknowingly are investing deeper rather than wider.

So, just like when my daughter behaves badly (rarely) and I need to take control of the situation, so must the LPs take control and tighten the leash with VC firms that are behaving “badly”. The behavior of my daughter (or dog if you consider that your child) is my responsibility, the behavior of VCs is an LP responsibility.

Here is what every LP should do right now:
1/ Bring every invested VC firm in and re-assess whether the invested amounts, category and valuations per portfolio company match the initially stated investment thesis and more importantly, your current risk profile across all assets.
2/ Ensure the spread between the investment in technologies versus the application of technologies to markets aligns with renewed opportunities and your current risk profile. The impact of technology has dramatically changed (rather than reduced), and many VCs are still stuck in the past.
3/ Hire an operational partner that establishes continuous oversight into the VC investment allocations (get one here) based on the risk and identity associated with each participating fund. That oversight should prevent the fund from investing outside the pre-established criteria.

Now is the time to reassess the investment opportunities in our technology industry. We believe the opportunities are abound, just not with the current investment tactics.

As Cesar Milan, a.k.a. the dog whisperer teaches us: its not too late to rescue any dog - as long as we can change the behavior of its caretaker. Similarly, it is not to late to improve entrepreneurialism if we change the behavior of its investors.

Tags: Subprime, Private Equity, VC, Entrepreneurs, Limited Partners, Subprime, Fundraising

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Subprime VC, as described in a previous blog is easily recognizable, here are some of my metrics. Run for the hills when the investor...:

1/ ...seems more interested in how it is built rather than what the disruptive business proposition is.
Innovation becomes successful when it marries macro-economic value with micro-economic (technology) execution. Technology risk is the least of our worries in Silicon Valley, yet fundamental disruption is crucial and should take up the majority of the discussion.

2/ ...seems more worried about cost of development than cost of greenfield customer acquisition.
Capital efficiency is a buzz-word investors love to throw around. In most cases they want you to be as cheap as possible. But capital efficiency is relative to the cost and value of customer acquisition. Not all venture capital deals start with a seed round below $250K, more disruptive innovation usually costs more to build well (think iPod, iPhone, iTunes, eBay, etc).

3/ ...talks about valuations before you’ve explained the value of becoming the market leader.
A favorite trick of investors is to value the company based on its present accomplishments and many entrepreneurs fall for it. Their companies become undervalued and underpriced which leads to early loss of control to investors. And when investors run a company, statistically the chances of success have diminished significantly. Early stage companies should be priced based on the value of the idea and accomplishments along the trajectory of market leadership. Your glass should be seen as half-full not half-empty.

4/ ...seems more occupied with categorizing the investment than understanding its unique business value.
When investors start categorizing investments in technology categories and subsequently base their investment decisions on them, that means they clearly missed the fact that you business proposition could have value regardless. Again, technologies are not the business, application of technology to a market segment is.

5/ ...talks about capital efficiency without probing market inefficiency.
Again, capital efficiency is a relative term. When a large market is extremely inefficient it probably means that the absolute cost to enter is high (otherwise someone else would have entered it before you). So, the cost to enter the market is a function of its current inefficiency. Many investors are less versed in inefficiencies than you and therefor misjudge the price it takes to enter. As the entrepreneur you will be faced with the inequitable consequences if you decide to bow down and take the investors’ word for it.

6/ ...doesn’t question market entry risk, but focuses on cost.
Investment risk is what should be top of mind to investors, but many of them think they have the operational experience to challenge the assumptions of the entrepreneurs. In many scenarios market entry risk can be mitigated by developing a better product, but a better product costs more money to build. At any time would I rather spend a dollar on R&D to make the product better, than spend a dollar on marketing expenses to try and make a “cheap” product land better. So, the right amount of money (not cost) is imperative to disrupt a market.

7/ ...doesn’t ask about the runway to profitability, but the initial round to get in.
Most companies require multiple rounds of funding. Those rounds are not there for you as the entrepreneur, but for the investor to establish milestones to make him more comfortable. An investor that does not allocate sufficient runway, is effectively selling short on the promise of your company and will cost you months of fundraising efforts at every round.

8/ ...asks you which other investors you’ve spoken to.
Investors are lemmings, and so you should not disclose who you talk to until you have all their term-sheet on the table. Force them to make their assessment of your company independently. Usually each investor has a different risk analysis of your company and last thing you want to do is add up all the negatives before there is a buying signal on all sides. Herd the positives.

9/ ...asks you to talk with his associates first.
As discussed in this blog many times over, associates are graduates that should be used to perform due diligence, not to discover a black swan. Many investors will use associates as a way to offload the workload created by the noise inherent to our industry. The minute you get the associate, you have become noise.

10/ ...asks you more about your education than your work experience.
Building innovation that is truly unique requires an analytical mind and ignorance to anything else but bottom-line results. Education teaches you how to respond to prescribed scenarios, innovation requires the opposite; an ability to respond adequately to a myriad of circumstances that have never presented itself to you, in that composition before. Any investor that focuses on your (or his) business school accomplishments has a warped view of what innovation really is.

Never forget that a great entrepreneurial idea sponsored by the wrong investor yields nothing but failure. Keep searching for the right partner and don’t bow down to subprime investment tactics.

Tags: VC, EBay, IPhone, Growth, Capitalism, Subprime, Startup

By Georges van Hoegaerden

It continues to amaze me how VCs point to the economic downturn as a reason for sluggish investing. We all know that at this point they should do exactly the opposite (and a few good ones do).

Information Technology is here to stay as we clearly have not reached the saturation point of its practical implementation, even though short-term M&A and IPO windows have pretty much closed - for now.

But I am especially dismayed by the fact that VCs seem to completely ignore responsibility for the fact that their investments strategies can’t seem to weather the storm and how they continue to hide behind the economic downturn to avoid the disclosure of their bad choices. Reminds you of anyone?

I don’t believe the VC model is broken, in the same way I don’t believe mortgage lending is broken. We will continue to buy new houses - and technologies. Both represent sizable investment returns for years to come. But the risk profile associated with lending money for a home has been miscalculated and I contend the majority of VCs are fundamentally miscalculating the risk of early-stage investing. Birds of a feather.

Here are some of the similarities:

1/ The sheer number of lenders entering the mortgage arena forced an artificial expansion into the low-end. In the technology industry about 790 US investors force a similar artificial expansion down into the low-end. Most entrepreneurs are forced to comply to the “capital efficiency” rule-book or, as I call it, subprime VC.

2/ The majority of people working at the mortgage bank cannot accurately assess the risk profile, neither can the majority of people working at a VC firm. The associate in a VC firm (or worse the General Partner), fresh out of school is simply not able to detect disruption. Schools are, by design, setup to teach students about white-swans, not the black swan that usually spawns real innovation.

3/ The lenders took advantage of uneducated buyers, without sufficiently reminding them that buying a house yields a debt, not an asset. Similarly, entrepreneurs are often made to believe they are successful when they land a round of funding, mistaking that for an asset (instead of a liability) and subsequently not paying enough attention to the acquisition of its real assets; new paying customers.

4/ The majority of home-buyers should not have qualified. Similarly, most technology ideas should not. Innovation is only meaningful when it monetizes ideas. So investing based on technology classifications is the wrong qualification of innovation.

As the included chart attempts to depict, the investment strategies in the 1990s and even the exuberance in 2000 produced better variance and returns than the atrophy created by the current VC rule-book. Now, too many investors herd (syndicate) around the same investment strategy, diminishing its returns and making it increasingly less attractive for smart entrepreneurs who refuse to submit themselves to subprime investment rules.

An artificial VC rule-book, subprime valuations, lower founder salaries, fewer M&A and zero IPO makes for a very unattractive entrepreneurial playground. If we don’t throw the VC rule-book out of the window, we should expect nothing more than sub-prime M&A and subprime IPOs, even when the economy recovers.

The concern is that we are creating fewer companies that someday have the financial wherewithal to acquire its smaller innovative brethren and like the lending market, are stuck with “innovation” that no-one wants to buy. I wrote about that starting more than 3 years back (here, here, here). We need VCs with the ability to spot disruptive business opportunities rather than perpetuate technology gimmickery.

Perhaps we can put the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) to work on something better than mindless self congratulating statistics of the past and misleading videos of the actual workings of venture capital today. It could instead create more transparency of its members, to stave off tougher selection and regulation from the Limited Partners (pension funds etc.) that are otherwise unavoidable.

We, as collective contributors to the technology ecosystem - not the elusive economy - are responsible for the performance of our industry and our ability to produce real value that can weather any storm, and that means we need to get out of subprime VC quickly.

Tags: VC, Investment, NVCA, Integrity, Innovation, Risk, Limited Partners, Startup, Subprime

By Georges van Hoegaerden

Not for a second do I buy into the doom-and-gloom spread by early stage investors citing the state of the economy as the reason for cutbacks. While the economic situation is worrisome, much of it is generated by supposed financial and business experts that are not. To say the least.

Sounds familiar? We have a few of those in Silicon Valley too. When money is involved, some people just can’t help themselves (or rather the opposite).

Investors still have plenty of overhang to invest with and their portfolio companies are on a 5-7 year trajectory to exit, meaning the viability of their choices is determined by the value at the end, not the value in the middle or the trajectory. The macro-economic value of a startup should remain intact in an economic downturn. So, the behavior of your investor will tell you whether you “married” well.

Very few startups should be materially impacted by the state of the economy, because:

1/ Their early stage market penetration is immaterial to the overall addressable “market”, leaving enough room for growth in any economy.

2/ The majority of (consumer focused) startups generate income through indirect monetization such as click-thru advertising, which is somewhat resilient to economic aberrations (even though purchasing may not).

3/ In early stage development, monetization is secondary to land-grab, and smart operating plans have very conservative and immaterial income projections built-in.

So, the fact that investors strike fear in the minds of entrepreneurs is the same as a president of a country at war expressing similar fear; not productive. Sure you need to be cautious and count your chickens, but great investors see this as a fantastic opportunity to double-down on their investments and amplify the market differentiation rather than restrict it.

Access to capital is a serious barrier to entry that can keep competitors out. So, if you are being restricted by your investor at this point it means he’s just not that into you and is doing you more harm than good.

Tags: VC, Markets, Investment, Economy, Consumer, Subprime, Startup

By Georges van Hoegaerden

I recently watched an interview on Charlie Rose with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and decided his “Black Swan” theory accurately describes the fundamental problem in early-stage technology investing (and innovation in general).

To paraphrase Taleb; the cultural assumption is that all swans are white (and therefor black swans could not exist). So you think.

Taleb (a partner at an investment firm) believes that scientists, economists, historians, policymakers, businessmen, and financiers are victims of an illusion of pattern; they overestimate the value of rational explanations of past data, and underestimate the prevalence of unexplainable randomness in that data.

The proof that Silicon Valley suffers from the white swan syndrome lies amongst many in the foolish behavior of investors, the predetermined investment allocations based on the tagging with ambiguous acronyms (such as web2.0, SOA, Cloud computing, CRM etc.) and the mindless herding of primarily unsuccessful ideas (or copies of a few successes) at the many popular technology conferences.

I am inclined to take Taleb’s theory a bit further: I believe the majority of people are victims of an illusion of pattern, established by years of (often irrelevant) education infused with the technology Kool-Aid that confined their thinking to a predetermined direction and scope. It prevented entrepreneurs and investors from ever being able to identify true innovation until it had become part of their past. Hence the rampant number of false positives and false negatives.

Taleb further adds that black swans are actually the ones that change the industry, and that the so-called “unexplainable” events (that have no single precedent in time) redefine the future of the whole industry. And so, the search is on, not just for the investor with the right macro-economic views, morals and personality, but also the vision to spot innovation that has no precedent - the black swan.

The noise in our industry is still drowning out the music. We need to change the way we invest and improve our ability to spot black swans or otherwise we will lose the entrepreneurs that can build them. Our excuse today is not the economy but our own performance in producing truly disruptive value that can withstand the test of time. We need to put real entrepreneurs on a pedestal and throw the copycats to the curb, quickly.

Albert Einstein was right all along: imagination is more important than knowledge. That applies to investors too.

Tags: VC, Innovation, Macro-economics, Einstein, Subprime, Startup

By Georges van Hoegaerden

For over 10 years I’ve built and managed growth for early stage innovation in Silicon Valley and more than ever do I believe that building real disruptive customer value is more important than trying to time an acquisition opportunity. You may too, unless of course you are a gambler and firmly believe that the $3 red-white-blue slot machines in Vegas consistently yield the greatest returns. I will not argue the outcome.

Acquisitions remain nothing more than a welcome diversion on your way to building the largest technology empire. And even now when IPOs have dried up any focus away from building your empire is damaging. Real disruptive innovation is resistant to economic aberrations and a consistent focus on customer value remains your only rescue.

I believe that IPOs for technology companies will return (and subsequently spur more pre-IPO acquisitions), albeit not with the same players. Real companies can only be built by real entrepreneurs, with real disruptive products supported by real investors. New participants (on both sides) with higher moral values will be the ones to restore trust in the technology industry and subsequently public stock markets that want a piece of it.

Today, the VCs are stuck with a product of their own aristocratic making. Commoditization of investment philosophies since the 1990s has generated technologies that can best be described as sexy-cool rather than disruptive and meaningful (with a few exceptions). It paved the way for get-rich-quick entrepreneurs that are skilled in feeding the dogs the dog-food, rather than support the real entrepreneurs that have a dissenting view of the world.

So, assuming you as an entrepreneur are for real, how would you recognize an investor that is not. Here are some of my anecdotal recommendations:

1/ Avoid an investor who blames his quick response on ADD
Attention Deficit Disorder is an illness, not a skill. Recommend the investor to consult a doctor.

2/ Avoid an investor who does not carry (or seriously considers) an iPhone
The iPhone is the biggest innovation in consumer electronics in my lifetime (so far) and if your potential investor does not understand its ramification to the technology ecosystem as a whole, it is unlikely he will get yours.

3/ Avoid an investor who cannot price your company ahead of you.
Any technology investor should be able to price the value of your disruption. Ask the investor for the valuation and if he is close to your target, you can share with him your cost model and where you are today on the trajectory. Cost model and stage (the risk) are a discount to the disruptive value, the ability to build the technology is merely a commodity. In Silicon Valley technology is not the risk, but market entry with sufficient disruption is. Walk away from investors that incorrectly evaluate the risk model.

4/ Avoid an investor whose partners you can’t stand
Investors in a fund make decisions collectively, they need partner consensus before they can invest - just like in politics (more on that later). A firm with a partner you don’t like should be taken off your VC prospect list, as you cannot risk the influence of the bad apple to your company’s future. Develop your personal blacklist (as we did) based on fundamental people principles.

5/ Avoid an investor who wears his education on his sleeve
Wearing a Super Bowl ring means you made it in the real world, wearing an Ivy League ring does not. I wholeheartedly agree with Craig Venter that later stage education (without operating experience) in general is a deterrent to creativity and innovation or the ability to spot and spawn it. The majority of Silicon Valley investors are remnants from a bull market, echoing beliefs that are founded on skewed business principles.

6/ Avoid an investor who asks really dumb questions and is proud of it.
I never thought dumb questions existed until I ran into one investor who proudly blogged about how other entrepreneurs simply walked away from him, making his life easier. We walked away from him too.

7/ Avoid an investor who thinks he knows your industry better.
Even in the unlikely scenario he does, you should still walk away. Investors that know industries better than the entrepreneur should have become one. So either the investor is better informed (which should send you back to the drawing board) or he thinks he does (which becomes a pain in board meetings). Investors see a lot of things that don’t work, rather than discover the opportunities that do.

The bottom line is that we recommend entrepreneurs not to squander their great ideas with the first investor that waves money in their face. Real disruption does not become extinct quickly and so you literally have years to find a great investor out of the 790 firms that exist in the United States.

Thankfully the get-rich-quick money schemes in technology are drying up, so make sure you, as the entrepreneur, also have the integrity to build real disruption that spawns real and lasting customer value for years to come.

I look forward to helping develop new investor 2.0 and entrepreneur 2.0 strategies with you.

Tags: IPhone, VC, Investment, Commodity, Entrepreneurs, Subprime, Startup