I was reading the daily Venture Wire blurb last Friday. Usually these are "quick reads" and sort of a mix between a story in the LA Times and Food and Wine, but the content in this one was particularly fascinating and alarming at the same time.
The last IPO this year was on March 19th. It was CardioNet , which is a great company Jim Sweeney started/runs down in San Diego (and participated in OCTANe's CA Medical Device Forum in 2006) at the intersection of health care and wireless data. (Congrats, Jim). However, that was MARCH 19th and it's June now!! There have been hundreds of venture-backed investments since March 19th, but none of the existing investments have gone IPO?
Sure many have been bought or "monetized" by VCs, but what is going on? The total number of IPOs is six for 2008 per the article and no "tech ones" since Valentine's Day? How much love is that? The trend is alarmingly getting worse as detailed below. Some points to ponder....
1. Is this tied to the subprime mess? Does a "spooked" capital market in one asset class bring down the whole capital chain as far as investment capital realization and availability?
2. Is an IPO not a real relevant option for VCs anymore and companies are being "built to be sold; not built to prosper?"
3. Will global, non-US markets with less regulations, be the choice going forward for IPOs?
4. Are we producing just "incremental innovation companies" instead of TRUE disruptive innovative companies? (Everyone these days talks innovation and brands it, but where is it?)
5. Or is it just one heck of a St. Patty's Day hangover....
Well 12 companies are filed and ready to go and let's wish them well as risk taking venture capital needs liquidity options to prosper; staying private usually does not pay the bills.
Interesting factoid ... last time there was this IPO lull was 2003, oil was about $25-$30 a barrel. Here in 2008 it is around $130. So while we lament our VC-backed IPO drought, we also get to regret not buying the oil futures index 5 years ago.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Is Obama Technology's first Presidential Candidate?
I was watching a great movie called Recount on HBO last week. The movie stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary and others and is about the Bush-Gore paper "hanging chad" fiasco in Florida during the 2000 election. Really entertaining TV in a day when if it were not for animated movies, we would have little to watch. Reality shows for me are for people without a reality. But I digress.
It got me to thinking, "what if technological advances in voting" had been around in 2000 like they are now in elections? Who would have won? Would Al "Green" Gore have been our President? Possible. Can't "hang a chad" online until 3-D virtual reality comes around. One thing I wouldn't want to see is Catherine Harris in virtual reality, but I digress.
Fast forward to today, Obama (funny how he has elevated to "one name" status with Prince and Madonna) gets the great majority of his fundraising war chest (it is 3X Hilary Clinton) through use of the Internet and the concept of "social communities meet giving". One of the early founders of Facebook has helped design this "technology driven community and donation model".
Hence, since more money brings more votes in most cases, can you make the case that technology, the non-use in year 2000 and the extended use in 2008, is influencing our Presidential election? Could Obama become America's first "technology president"?
Wonder what the future holds for us in the electoral process? Come hear these discussions at the So Cal Digital Tech Forum on June 9 - 10 However, at this pace of technology advancement, I will be voting for an Avatar for President by 2020.
Thoughts?
It got me to thinking, "what if technological advances in voting" had been around in 2000 like they are now in elections? Who would have won? Would Al "Green" Gore have been our President? Possible. Can't "hang a chad" online until 3-D virtual reality comes around. One thing I wouldn't want to see is Catherine Harris in virtual reality, but I digress.
Fast forward to today, Obama (funny how he has elevated to "one name" status with Prince and Madonna) gets the great majority of his fundraising war chest (it is 3X Hilary Clinton) through use of the Internet and the concept of "social communities meet giving". One of the early founders of Facebook has helped design this "technology driven community and donation model".
Hence, since more money brings more votes in most cases, can you make the case that technology, the non-use in year 2000 and the extended use in 2008, is influencing our Presidential election? Could Obama become America's first "technology president"?
Wonder what the future holds for us in the electoral process? Come hear these discussions at the So Cal Digital Tech Forum on June 9 - 10 However, at this pace of technology advancement, I will be voting for an Avatar for President by 2020.
Thoughts?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Stem Cells: The Holy Grail, The Jury's Still Out, or Somewhere in between?
Stem Cell money and grants are starting to work their way into California universities and communities, as it has in many other states and countries (congrats to UCI being awarded $27.2M for the new stem cell building) most of the initial expenditures, of course, are on critical facilities, training and faculty. This is how core, fundamental developmental research is ignited.
Normally the public would not look for a direct, economic benefit from such research (translational is another story), but would the public feel short changed if stem cell research does not have a direct impact and create the "next greatest drug or medical advance"?
I think they might. Are Stem Cells being 'set up for the fall' years from now? Will stem cell methods and processes further develop? Of course they will; but quickly enough? Or does it really matter as fundamental research is paramount?
Normally the public would not look for a direct, economic benefit from such research (translational is another story), but would the public feel short changed if stem cell research does not have a direct impact and create the "next greatest drug or medical advance"?
I think they might. Are Stem Cells being 'set up for the fall' years from now? Will stem cell methods and processes further develop? Of course they will; but quickly enough? Or does it really matter as fundamental research is paramount?
Monday, May 5, 2008
How come kids get a trophy for everything these days?
I was enjoying a nice Saturday afternoon with my 6 year old working on the computer (after his baseball game and after he helped his little sister as he will be "well rounded" if it is the last thing I (or he) does; but I digress).
Forget the fact that he can search web sites, has his favorite pulldown menu and knows how to naviagte the control menu, I noticed his sports trophies...all SEVEN of them! We had to buy a side table to hold them as the top of his dresser became too crowded. He is 6!
What is it with trophies for just "showing up"? Is this good enough? It is certainly a positive step to "get started" but is this a good example for teenagers and young adults that as long as they show up they will be rewarded and all will be fine? Is this REALLY in the best interest for them down the line? What the heck happended to struggling, competing, winning, losing, celebrating, crying and challenging yourselves to be better? Is that not "in vogue" anymore?
Well it should be. Efforts like OCTANe Next, MIND Institute and other innovative groups focus on results and help PREPARE our youth in an "outcome driven way"; that is future careers and the hope that a high value job will enable them to have a good and productive life.
After all ... business is not an intramural sport.
Thoughts?
Forget the fact that he can search web sites, has his favorite pulldown menu and knows how to naviagte the control menu, I noticed his sports trophies...all SEVEN of them! We had to buy a side table to hold them as the top of his dresser became too crowded. He is 6!
What is it with trophies for just "showing up"? Is this good enough? It is certainly a positive step to "get started" but is this a good example for teenagers and young adults that as long as they show up they will be rewarded and all will be fine? Is this REALLY in the best interest for them down the line? What the heck happended to struggling, competing, winning, losing, celebrating, crying and challenging yourselves to be better? Is that not "in vogue" anymore?
Well it should be. Efforts like OCTANe Next, MIND Institute and other innovative groups focus on results and help PREPARE our youth in an "outcome driven way"; that is future careers and the hope that a high value job will enable them to have a good and productive life.
After all ... business is not an intramural sport.
Thoughts?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Social networking...the future or a waste of time?
You can't read, view or listen to any news media channel (Web mostly of course because mainstream old news media pretty much discounts Web 2.0 and vice versa...just like viewers ignore Katie Couric ... but I digress) without seeing articles/blogs relating to social networking, VC "overheated fundings", communities of millions run by kids at Starbucks, and "how many people follow me on Twitter when I say I am going to bathroom." Seriously, this happens.
Which got me to thinking...is Web 2.0 useful or a waste of time? As usual in life, the answer is somewhere in between. A couple points to consider:
1. Social networks are still relatively new. The "excess inflection point" hasn't been reached yet.
2. The phoenomenan will probably mirror the bubble companies in the late 90s...look for 2-3 "Amazon's" to grow, excess bubble and valuations to the moon, then a 95% valuations/stock price crash and no new venture fundings. Then, the companies with brand and a business model will re-emerge and make billions (look at the Amazon 10 year stock chart, it's amazing).
3. The key is that social communities haven't REALLY figured out how to make money. Period. Great article in Boston Globe the other day (checking on my Red Sox who got swept by Devil Rays...but I digress) on this topic. Conferences like the So Cal Digital Tech Forum are starting to form to talk business; not just "techie" hype.
4. Most people over 30 with family and jobs and kids and sick parents and (on and on and on) will NEVER have the time to spend on social communities en mass; they will find 1-2 they like and stick to it. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between "having a life" and number of hours on social networks... but I digress.
In summary, we all should "plug in" but the business impact of social networking is still in its infancy. In the coming months/year it will - and should - be monitored by the business community.
Thoughts?
Which got me to thinking...is Web 2.0 useful or a waste of time? As usual in life, the answer is somewhere in between. A couple points to consider:
1. Social networks are still relatively new. The "excess inflection point" hasn't been reached yet.
2. The phoenomenan will probably mirror the bubble companies in the late 90s...look for 2-3 "Amazon's" to grow, excess bubble and valuations to the moon, then a 95% valuations/stock price crash and no new venture fundings. Then, the companies with brand and a business model will re-emerge and make billions (look at the Amazon 10 year stock chart, it's amazing).
3. The key is that social communities haven't REALLY figured out how to make money. Period. Great article in Boston Globe the other day (checking on my Red Sox who got swept by Devil Rays...but I digress) on this topic. Conferences like the So Cal Digital Tech Forum are starting to form to talk business; not just "techie" hype.
4. Most people over 30 with family and jobs and kids and sick parents and (on and on and on) will NEVER have the time to spend on social communities en mass; they will find 1-2 they like and stick to it. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between "having a life" and number of hours on social networks... but I digress.
In summary, we all should "plug in" but the business impact of social networking is still in its infancy. In the coming months/year it will - and should - be monitored by the business community.
Thoughts?
Monday, April 21, 2008
VC fundings down...tied to economic recession?
Was having pleasant cup of joe reading the paper (yes once in awhile I still like the "print dinosaur") when I read the article on slowing VC fundings in 1q 2008. Both PWC and E&Y do a great job covering the field.
On the same page or close to it, was an article on recession and unemployment rising. So is there a link? Who is the tail and who is the dog? (I will skip the easy analogy of an ass). Is there correlation between the two and what is the lag effect, if any?
My 2 cents...a recession, oil at a gazillion dollars a barrel and gas at $4 a gallon does not make people feel good. Quick poll, who has gone over $100 on an SUV fill-up? Let me start the list, but I digress.
If you were a VC, why would you deploy risk capital - particularly early stage - in a time of upcoming economic uncertainty? For the most part, the answer is - you wouldn't. You'd cherry pick your opportunities and be conservative and ride out the storm. I think this is much truer in the IT world than in biomedical, as biomedical sectors are influenced more by reimbursement, government, legal and market issues than consumer spending. (Note: Botox has passed milk in the family home and happy hours in the single home on the list of “critical needs,” so that isn’t really a discretionary spend).
Hence as VCs take a breather and raise more money/new funds as many are now doing, entrepreneurs should keep plugging away, increase business value and be realistic that although there is a lot of money out there, it might stay “out there” for awhile. Focus on capital efficiency and position for a stronger 2009.
Thoughts?
On the same page or close to it, was an article on recession and unemployment rising. So is there a link? Who is the tail and who is the dog? (I will skip the easy analogy of an ass). Is there correlation between the two and what is the lag effect, if any?
My 2 cents...a recession, oil at a gazillion dollars a barrel and gas at $4 a gallon does not make people feel good. Quick poll, who has gone over $100 on an SUV fill-up? Let me start the list, but I digress.
If you were a VC, why would you deploy risk capital - particularly early stage - in a time of upcoming economic uncertainty? For the most part, the answer is - you wouldn't. You'd cherry pick your opportunities and be conservative and ride out the storm. I think this is much truer in the IT world than in biomedical, as biomedical sectors are influenced more by reimbursement, government, legal and market issues than consumer spending. (Note: Botox has passed milk in the family home and happy hours in the single home on the list of “critical needs,” so that isn’t really a discretionary spend).
Hence as VCs take a breather and raise more money/new funds as many are now doing, entrepreneurs should keep plugging away, increase business value and be realistic that although there is a lot of money out there, it might stay “out there” for awhile. Focus on capital efficiency and position for a stronger 2009.
Thoughts?
Monday, April 7, 2008
People people everywhere and not a one to hire ...
Was at a great program last week about the "War for Talent" ... the same day the March unemployment figures came out and the US lost about 80,000 jobs in March, to run the total job loses this year to 230,000 and the unemployment to go to 5.1%. Wow. We're in the crapper.
BUT there are thousands and thousands (OCTANe knows of over 400) high paying, high innovation jobs that go unfulfilled and Biomedical, IT and Clean Tech companies are yearning and competing for talent. What gives?
Simple. Convert mortgage workers to scientists and technology workers. Run a credit report? Just like running an FDA study. Explain an ARM mortgage? Just like writing XML code. No down payment needed with interest rate resets at will? Just like venture capital. Oh if life were that easy...but I digress.
Are we positioning our workforce to be aligned with our future competitive growth industries?
Is there such a thing as an "un-trainable worker"?
How come millions of kids now don't like engineering and "the hard stuff" for careers?
Which brings us to good old supply and demand. We are demanding more innovative talent; just need the supply to catch up. The "War for talent" is now everywhere, from local to regional to global; now only if we can go PC and change the phrase to "quest for talent". Maybe this would help us find more good people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
