Emerging Enterprise Center Blog - Commentary and Analysis For Entrepreneurs and Startups

I know that we are all bored with the perennial comparisons between the Valley and New England in which New England inevitably appears as the landof the hide-bound and the home of the risk adverse.  The fact that we are all bored with the discussion does not however address the merits of the claim.  It just blinds us to the looming consequence: New England, already only half the size of the Valley by many measures, will lose further ground as exciting start-ups from the Valley (and New York, but we will get to that in a minute) continue to make their mark and investor money drifts (or perhaps races) towards perceived greener pastures.

I finally got around to my quarterly comparison of deal terms published by our firm, Fenwick (a Valley based firm that reports on transactions in the Valley) and Cooley (a firm with many offices that reports on transactions handled by it).

And here of New York:  No one that I am aware of reports on New York transactions.  But, starting with Q1 o f 2012, we will, because we are doing increasing amounts of emerging company work there.

So here is part 1 of my thesis:  I expect that terms will be most favorable to entrepreneurs in the Valley, least favorable in New England and somewhere in between for the rest.  Of course, I think that the “somewhere in between” number will include Cooley’s New England transactions (which will have the effect of making them generally seem less favorable to entrepreneurs).  We should all note that Cooley feels compelled (at least in some instances) to report numbers for Northern California separately from the others.

So, without further fanfare, below is the table that compares certain of the deal terms reported on by the three firms for Q4 of 2011.

Fourth Quarter 2011 Transaction Terms

Of course I knew what the chart would say before I made the prediction, so no surprise that it supports my thesis.

Here, however, is part 2 of my thesis:  When we start reporting on New York separately (which we will be doing starting with a Q1, 2012 report – to come out soon), it will show that terms in New York are far closer to those in the Valley than to those in New England.  Now I don’t’ know the answer to that question, but we are doing the research now and will have an answer soon.

Keep in mind that New York has gone from nowhere just a few years ago to equaling (or passing by some measures) New England.  Could it be that NYC is just a friendlier place for entrepreneurs than New England?

The bad new is that I have taken a blogging holiday since February 2.  The good news is that the holiday is the result of being pressed on client matters and business travel (including to China).  But, it is time to come back. 

As I have done each quarter for some time, this blog presents a comparison of the published statistics relating to venture deals from my firm, Foley Hoag LLP, and the west coast firm, Fenwick & West LLP.  This time I am not including Cooley LLP because their year end edition has not yet been published. 

Here are some general thoughts:

Foley Hoag, in our publication Venture Perspectives, reported on a total of 46 deals in New England.  Fenwick reported on 95 deals in the Valley.  This puts the New England market at about half the size of the Silicon Valley market  -- entirely consistent with historical norms (at least for so long as I have been observing the scene).  The new comer, of course, is New York, where, according to Crain’s New York business.com, there were 51 financings in Q4 in New York in the following industries 20 in software, 17 in media and 14 in IT (for sure there were other in other industries). 

On the one hand, this might suggest that New England is losing ground to NYC.  On the other hand, it suggests that the north east (New England plus New York) is now as big a market as the Valley and is probably growing faster given the velocity in NYC.  (I can hear the Valley folks saying you’ve gotta include Seattle and San Diego – whatever.  If that is where they take it, they have in effect conceded the point.)

Even more interesting, is that most of the New York deals are software, digital media and IT related.  Based on anecdotal evidence there were a significant number of digital media deals in New England (unfortunately, our survey lumps media in with software so I don’t have precise number).  According to Fenwick, the most active sectors in the Valley were software followed by cleantech and hardware then came internet and media followed last by biotech.

If I had to pick something hot today, it would be internet and digital media – and the epicenter is not in the Valley!  The reasons for this are almost certainly that the advertising industry is headquartered in New York, there are lots of digital and data infrastructure companies in New England, and there is lots of money in New England and New York to fund these businesses.  It is efficient to be near the relevant infrastructure (the advertising world).  Apologies to Nivi and all the other “you have to move to the Valley” proponents, but if you are working on a digital media company – don’t relo to the Valley quite yet.

So, with that as a background, below is my usual table comparing actual deal terms.

Comparison of Terms for Q4 2010 Venture Deals from Foley Hoag and Fenwick & West

(some percentages are approximate)

It pains me every time I write this, but there is a persistent and consistent difference in terms between New England and Valley deals.  Look at cumulative dividends and redemption.  The numbers are consistent quarter after quarter.  At least as to these terms (and painful as it is to admit, I suspect as to others), entrepreneurs get a better deal in the Valley than they do in New England.

After Q1, I was wondering if the venture economy was back or if folks just thought so.  At the end of Q1 things seemed to be on a steady upward trend; now they seem to be sputtering.

Well, the Q2 results have now been reported on by many sources, including the three law firms that publish data, Foley Hoag (my firm), Fenwick & West (a Silicon Valley based firm), and Cooley.  Unfortunately, I think Dave Pierson from my firm put it well in his analysis of New England based activity, “the environment for venture investing … has generally improved compared to the dismal conditions prevailing last year, but also that pace of improvement has stalled.”

Fenwick described third party analysis of the venture industry as follows, “2010 reported a significant increase in venture investment, mild improvement in venture funded company liquidity, and continued difficulty in capital-raising by venture funds.”

Cooley had this to say, “the second quarter of 2010 produced mixed signals for the venture financing environment.”

In my last post on quarterly results, I described what each firm covers in its reports so I won’t go into that again except to say that my firm’s publication, Foley Hoag Venture Perspectives, is devoted to venture financings for companies headquartered in New England.  Fenwick’s publication is devoted to companies headquartered in Silicon Valley.  Cooley’s is devoted to information taken from transactions in which Cooley served as counsel and is not focused on any particular geography.

Activity Levels

According to Foley Hoag’s research, as a general matter, activity levels for both Series A and Series B and later rounds in New England were up significantly when compared to Q2 of last year.  The data shows a more mixed performance when compared to Q1 of this year.  Perhaps the most striking piece of data is that there were no (as in none) cleantech deals in New England in Q2.  Variability is too great from quarter to quarter to draw much of a conclusion from this fact.  Having said that, it is consistent with anecdotal evidence indicating that VCs are being very cautious about cleantech deals.  Also the flattening between Q1 and Q2 is consistent with anecdotal evidence of a general slowing in the economy.

Fenwick had this to say about activity in the Valley, “Up rounds exceeded down rounds in 2Q10 55% to 27%, with 18% of rounds flat.  This was an improvement over 1Q10, when up rounds exceeded down rounds 49% to 32%, with 19% of rounds flat.  This was the fourth quarter in a row in which up rounds exceeded down rounds. … In general, the cleantech, software and internet/digital media industries had the best valuation-related results in 2Q10, while the life science and hardware industries trailed.”

But, Cooley seems to have slightly different experience.  Cooley had this to say about their findings, “Overall, our data points to mixed signals in the venture financing environment. In Q2, we saw a reversal in a recent trend of increasing up rounds. Though the majority of deals were still up rounds, the percentage decreased to 52% from 61% in the prior quarter. Median pre-money valuations were also mixed. The data showed valuation increases for Series A and C deals, while pre-money valuations declined for Series B and D+ rounds.”

Looked at from 30,000 feet, reports from all three firms seem to have picked up on some mixed results for Q2.  While it is not clear what this augers for Q3 and beyond, it does seem to reflect the general queasiness of the general U.S. economy.

Terms

The flattening trend, if that is a fair description, is also reflected in the terms for transactions.  I have tried to consolidate the deal terms reported on by the three firms in the table below.  This table shows the percentage of deals having a particular term and compares the findings of each firm (to the extent that the firm covers the particular term) with respect to particular terms that appeared in deals closed during the first quarter of 2010.

Cumulative Dividends

Consistent with a long standing trend and as was the case last quarter, the most striking comparison in this table is the fact that more than half of all New England deals carry cumulative dividends but less than 10% of Silicon Valley deals have them.  As I noted last time, “That is huge difference.  And, it is hard to explain. Many VC funds have offices in both markets.  Based on that fact alone, I would have guessed that there would be a tendency to have some homogeneity within a fund and that this alone would cause differences to be much narrower than an order of magnitude.  So, I checked out historical numbers going back a couple of years and this seems to be a persistent and consistent difference between New England and Silicon Valley.  It certainly suggests that Silicon Valley is more founder friendly than New England, I am sorry to say.”

Preferences with Participation

Also consistent with last quarter, the similarities are striking when it comes to participation.  Foley Hoag’s numbers for Series B and later stage deals and Cooley’s numbers for Series C transactions seem to be higher than the norm, but this may well be due to peculiarities in the sample.  As I noted last time, “This really begs the question why there is a seeming convergence around participation but not dividends.”  I would love to get some commentary from readers on this inconsistency in convergence.  BTW, I have again run across a New England based VC (and counsel) who insist that founder reps (covering all the company reps in a superseed deal but with recourse limited to the founder’s equity) are the norm.  I don’t think this is ever asked for on the West Coast, and I think it has been many years since some version of this was the “norm” on the East Coast, but I would also love to get some commentary on founder reps in the context of superseed deals, as well.

Redemption

With respect to redemption provisions, Foley Hoag continues to find that redemptions provisions exist in more than half of all deals or twice as much as Fenwick reports.  Last quarter I thought I had identified a trend away from redemption, but the numbers seem to be holding steady.  I will be curious to see how the numbers trend over the next few quarters.

Pay to Play

The incidence of pay to play provision is low across the board, and I don’t think the small differences are meaningful.

Antidilution

No surprises here:  Weighted average antidilution rules.  Full ratchet deals are rare everywhere, and, I believe, that they reflect unique circumstances.

Conclusion

While it would be nice to be able to report a steady upward trend across the country and across various factors, it ain’t happening.  But the news if not great is not all bad.  As one of my partners, Dave Pierson, put it in his article in Foley Hoag Venture Perspectives, “Thomson Reuters and the National Venture Capital Association have reported that exit activity for venture-backed companies was up during Q2 2010…..There were … 92 M&A exits, down from Q1 2010 but up significantly from Q2 2009.  The M&A exits with reported values generally yielded more favorable returns than in Q1 2010.  Venture-backed M&A exits with reported values greater than 4X the venture investment represented 65% of the Q2 2010 total versus only 45% of the Q1 2010 total. Venture-backed M&A exits with reported values less than 1X the venture investment represented 15% of the Q2 2010 total versus 31% of the Q1 2010 total.”  In addition, there were 17 venture-backed IPO’s in Q2.  This is the most in any quarter since 2007.

Everyone thinks things in the venture world are looking up. Numbers of deals are up, valuations are up, terms are friendly. VCs and entrepreneurs are lining Winter Street and Sand Hill Road holding hands and signing kumbaya. Well, not quite. Foley Hoag LLP, Fenwick &West LLP, and Cooley LLP have now all published their reviews of venture financing transactions for Q1 of 2010, and, while there are some interesting differences, the tone is generally upbeat. Having said that, perspective is everything and sweeping statements about the health of the venture economy are l likely to be wrong if you don’t take all the available facts into consideration.

Reports from these firms cover a lot of the same types of material however they each look at some different things and they each source the data in different ways.

Foley Hoag, my firm, is headquartered in Boston. Our publication, Foley Hoag Venture Perspectives, is devoted to an analysis of financings for companies headquartered in New England. We try to cover all New England deals (that is we don’t limit our reporting to deals in which our firm is involved). We cover activity levels, valuations, and terms. In each case we break it up between Series A investments on the one hand and Series B and later stage investments on the other hand. We also report on activity and size of deals by industry.

Fenwick describes its report as “Trends in terms of venture financings in Silicon Valley.” This firm reports on venture financings for companies headquartered in Silicon Valley, and reports on financing rounds, price changes, and something they refer to as the Fenwick & West Venture Capital Barometer (you will have to look that one up for yourself). They also report on a variety of deal terms.

Cooley has this to say about its report, “This quarterly report provides data reflecting Cooley’s experience in venture capital financing terms and trends. Information is taken from transactions in which Cooley served as counsel to either the issuing company or investors.” This firm reports on numbers of deals, valuations and certain terms. Cooley has nine offices, so their data comes from many regions but, as noted, is limited to deals in which they were involved.

Because we cover similar data (but not the same data) in different ways and present it in different ways, it just isn’t possible to compare the data from all firms on an apple to apples basis. So, I have focused this post on (1) activity levels (that is numbers of deals) and (2) deal terms. 

Activity Levels

All three firms are reporting increased activity in Q1 of 2010 over Q1 of 2009 and over Q4 of 2009.

Foley Hoag found that activity levels for Series A investments in New England measured by the number of deals was up both compared to Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2009. The picture was mixed for Series B and later stage investments. The number of these deals was down from last quarter but up from a year ago. It seems to me that variability is too great from quarter to quarter, so the year on year comparison seems to me to be more telling of the general direction of the venture economy.

Fenwick had this to say about the results they found, “1Q10 results were similar to 4Q09, with up rounds exceeding down rounds in 1Q10 49% to 32%, with 19% of rounds flat.” They also noted that according to their findings, internet/digital media had the best results while cleantech had the worst results.

Cooley had this to say about the deals they were involved in, “Though we saw a slight decline in deal numbers, we saw a significant increase in invested dollars compared to the same quarter a year ago. Additionally, up rounds reached a level we have not seen since the middle of 2008.”

In a big picture way, all three of us observed a modest but steady upward trend in the tech economy. 

Terms

The upward trend also appeared in the terms that companies are getting from their venture investors. I have tried to consolidate the deal terms reported on by the three of us in the table below. This table shows the percentage of deals having a particular term and compares the findings of each firm (to the extent that the firm covers the particular term) with respect to particular terms that appeared in deals closed during the first quarter of 2010.

Cumulative Dividends

The most striking comparison in this table is the fact that more than half of all New England deals carry cumulative dividends but less than 10% of Silicon Valley deals have them. That is huge difference. And, it is hard to explain. Many VC funds have offices in both markets. Based on that fact alone, I would have guessed that there would be a tendency to have some homogeneity within a fund and that this alone would cause differences to be much narrower than an order of magnitude. So, I checked out historical numbers going back a couple of years and this seems to be a persistent and consistent difference between New England and Silicon Valley. It certainly suggests that Silicon Valley is more founder friendly than New England, I am sorry to say.

Preferences with Participation

If the differences are striking when it comes to dividends, the similarities are striking when it comes to participation. Cooley’s numbers for Series A and Series C transactions seem to be higher than the norm, but this may well be due to peculiarities in the sample. This really begs the question why there is a seeming convergence around participation but not dividends. I don’t even have a good speculation around this one.

Redemption

With respect to redemption provisions, Foley Hoag is finding numbers that are twice as high as Fenwick (Cooley does not report on this term). This one, however, I think has an explanation. In New England the incidence of redemption provisions is trending downward rapidly. As I have said elsewhere, I suspect that this is in response to changes in accounting practices. The numbers probably reflect a more rapid response to these changes in Silicon Valley than New England, but I predict the will converge at a very low percentage over the next year or so.

Pay to Play

The incidence of pay to play provision is low across the board, but higher in New England than in Silicon Valley and higher than Cooley reports. My sense, entirely subjective, is that the difference is not particularly dramatic and probably reflects a slightly more conservative investment culture in New England than in Silicon Valley. I also predict that, as the venture industry works through the current very rough fund raising environment and more funds know where the stand with investment dollars, that the incidence of pay to play provisions will both decline to a lower number and converge across the country.

Antidilution

No surprises here. Weighted average antidilution is the universal standard. Full ratchet deals are rare everywhere, and, I believe, that they reflect unique circumstances.

Conclusion

While it is nice to be able to report an upward trend in our sector of the economy, it is not time for kumbaya yet. Let’s remember that it isn’t 2007 (which was a good, but not a great, year). We are staring at some chronic problems (trends like the retirement of the baby boomers and how is that going to be paid for and the staggering debt the U.S. and other countries have run up) and some acute problems (the debt crisis in Europe and the volatility of the stock markets). We are not going to dig our way out of this hole with a strong manufacturing comeback. We need a thriving entrepreneurial tech economy to lead the way. Fortunately, this sector looks like it may come back to life.

Once again the year end numbers are out and the ritual wringing of hands has started. As is often the case, Fred Wilson has a clear point in his post The Venture Diet is Working. His basic point, which many others have also made, is that there is too much money floating around the venture industry and that this excessive amount of money drives down industry returns. If there is less money invested in any given period, presumably it will go to the better deals (generally speaking) and will ultimately provide better returns. You can’t argue with that proposition. It is economics 101.

However, Fred is looking at the supply side of the equation (i.e. the supply of money). I am not an economist (in fact I am an attorney with a graduate degree in English literature), but if you look at the demand side of the equation (entrepreneurs seeking money) you might conclude that underlying Fred’s and others’ analysis is an assumption that the rate of change along the demand curve is more or less constant. For every dollar that you take out of the venture market a somewhat consistent corresponding amount of demand increases (or to put it another way – the value of the investment dollar gets bid up in a somewhat consistent way).

I keep saying "somewhat" because I think the demand curve may be more (and sometimes less) steep at various points along the supply curve. Here is the part that I cannot "prove" or demonstrate, but I believe that the ecosystem needs a certain amount of investment activity to remain viable. In order to motivate people to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, they have to have some hope of getting funded and, ultimately, of a cool exit. If the investment supply becomes too small, that hope may disappear and the ecosystem may not support entrepreneurial life at all. If you take enough oxygen out of the pond, the fish will die.

So, the system needs to be smaller to permit good returns to investors (or they will go away), and the system needs to be large enough to provide incentive (hope of funding), even to those who might fail. Those two points define the space of viability for the venture capital/tech entrepreneur ecosystem. The question that needs to be answered is whether that space exists at all. A second question is, if it does exist, where is it?

To me this issue also raises larger questions about the so-called venture model. From my vantage point, I see VCs investing in well conceived tight investment thesis tech companies with the plan of an M&A exit (mostly). One way to think of this (and not a particularly original way) is to observe that the buyers (Microsoft, Google, et al) are outsourcing new product development risk. That is why VC investments seem to be focused on tight investment thesis companies with a seeming clear path to an acquisition. (I can just feel the VC community pounding me with the "we want to create great companies speech," but look at what they actually do not what they say they want to do.) In part this model is driven by the ten year fund cycle. Recently, I have run across VC investments (I have two in my client portfolio), that are not driving to an exit so much as towards developing larger sustainable businesses.

While it may be that the VC diet works, it also may be that it doesn’t and something new must emerge. Either way, it is a critical issue. We need tech entrepreneurs to grow wealth and we need a way to value them and provide a handsome return to people who invest in them. If we don’t we will end up having to compete with Brazil to make Nike sneakers.

Reproduced below are a couple of paragraphs from an article in VentureWire the thesis of which is that the venture economy has bottomed out.  The article, " Later-Stage Valuations Hold Steady In 2Q After Plunging In 1Q" is by Russell Garland. 

If the conclusions are true, this is certainly a harbinger of good news for entrepreneurs.  One thing to keep in mind is that we can be up 50% from a bottom (not that we are yet) and still be down a lot from "normal" (whatever that may be) times.  The economy is still shaking out, and what it will look like when a new equilibrium is reached is very unclear. 

In the spirit of looking for good news on the economic front, here is something that seems more solid to me than other indicators I have pointed to before. There is more good stuff on my desk today than there was just a couple months ago. When I talk to other business lawyers (as opposed to litigators) here in Boston, they tell the same story. Incredibly, when I look at the actual stats for our firm’s business department, the hard cold numbers confirm the story. Why should you care? Because law firm activity, at least in the corporate finance area, is a lagging indicator of client activity. So, if anecdotes and statistics are right, the corner has been turned.

Continue Reading

What are you seeing? People seem to be asking each other this question with increasing frequency. I attended a board meeting for a client who will need to be doing a financing in the next few months, and that was the one question everyone wanted to have the answer to. There is no good answer to this question because no one is seeing anything. We all have random data points. So, here is my answer:

Prepare to be horrified. Funded companies that are doing well and controlling their burn, are getting appalling down valuations from potential new investors. These valuations are often below the original “A” round valuation. Imagine meeting your milestones, controlling your burn and going from $80 million to $10 million on valuation. This is if you are lucky enough to get an offer of investment. Most of what I am seeing is people doing a bunch of diligence and then declining politely.

Continue Reading

According to VentureWire,

A plague of layoffs touching all industries - specifically the finance and technology sectors - has opened the flood gates for entrepreneurs looking to strike out on their own at a time when jobs are scarce. Some cases are desperation, while others are an opportunity for talented executives to take the start-up plunge they always dreamed of.

Only time will tell, if there is really a large wave of new start-up activity. My entirely subjective sense is that it may never be a good time to do a start-up, but some times are worse than others. If you can bootstrap or if you have access to angel (or here is an unlikely thought) VC money, now may be a good time to start on the theory that you wont need market traction for a year or more and you can catch the next wave. If you don’t have a brilliant business plan and you expect to get professional investment, it will be very hard to find. My sense is that investors are not feeling a lot of pressure to invest right away. They are actually looking at fewer opportunities (even though there may be more out there) and they are looking longer and harder at them.

Today is Obama’s inauguration. It is a day of great optimism on so many fronts. Having said that, we have just published our Q3 New England deal numbers. Another source for deal numbers is CrunchBase. It has two categories: financing and acquisitions. If you click on the graphs, you get the underlying data. In the case of the financing, CrunchBase publishes the date (by month), the issuer, the amount of the raise, the investors and the stage. In the case of acquisitions, it provides the date, the target, the acquirer and, sometimes, the price. The acquisitions graph shows a steep decline in Q3 – who would have guessed? The financing graph shows a steep decline in October and a slower decline thereafter. I am not sure how CrunchBase gathers its numbers, I imagine that it is based in some way on information provided by its network (which is large). In any event, their data is consistent with all the other data I am seeing... Obama has is work cut out for him.

Updated later on January 20.  I just took a look at Don Dodge's blog.  He too has Q4 numbers to show. 

There has been a lot of interest recently in the level of venture capital investment activity that can be expected over the near term in light of the recent meltdown in the credit and capital markets. Through the third quarter of 2008, investment activity seems to have held up pretty well, but what will the future bring? I’m no fortune-teller, but based on what I’ve been seeing and hearing, I can hazard a few educated guesses:

• There will be a slowdown in activity as investors wait for the economic picture to stabilize.
• Seed rounds and Series A rounds will continue to get done for promising companies, but at reduced valuations and with more onerous terms.
• Follow on rounds will become harder to do, and will more often be internally led.
• Down rounds will become more prevalent.
• Bridge financings will serve as the finger in the dike until denial progresses to acceptance.

One potentially positive note for emerging companies that may arise out of the current economic situation:  engineering and other technical talent may become easier to find and less costly to recruit.

According to the NVCA approximately $36 billion has been raised by venture funds in 2007 (see my blog titled Money on the Sidelines).  This is a really big number, and I am not sure what is included. 

Research into DowJones VentureSource indicates that (according to their methodology) the following is the money raised by VC funds in the last ten years. 

Any way you look at it a lot of money was raised in since 2003, and some of it is getting old.  Without having an accurate fix on how much has been invested, it is impossible to know what is on the sidelines.