• Saturday, November 21, 2009 Latest Update: 4:29PM
Daniel Englander | June 30, 2008 at 12:07 AM 4 Comments

Exit Here, Mind the Gap: Part I

The second quarter sucked. For a lot of reasons. If you were a VC, it’s more than likely you woke up once or twice in a cold sweat wondering if those lignin-to-hydrogen and supercapacitor companies you funded were really the best place to put $80 million. And maybe for a brief moment this Saturday morning, you cracked open the The New York Times business section, your eyes wandering past the picture of the fat lady with the milk jug, until you settle on a story that made you mix tears of pain with your Wheaties.

The second quarter was the first time since 1978 that there were no venture-backed IPOs. The first quarter was no picnic either, with only five VC-backed companies making their debut on the public markets. So there are a few well-trod reasons why this is probably the case: the markets continue to death spiral as big investors sells off and small investors either hold tight or move money into safer harbors, like commodities; the Fed has made some noise about uncertainty over inflation, halting the orderly retreat in the Federal Funds Rate to two percent, with rate hikes possible in the future; tightening credit markets and lots of distrust has moved money out the banks and under the mattress; and, generally, with the economy at its worst point in recent memory, who’s got time to pop open a bottle of Perrier-Jouet and go bang the hell out of the NASDAQ bell. Come to think of it, if you haven’t moved all of your money out of the NASDAQ and into oil exploration equipment manufacturers and defense contractors, you might as well just give up right now.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

But macroeconomic problems aside - because, really, when was the last time you talked to a VC who cared about macroeconomic problems? - it’s probably important to think about whether the absolute lack of exits has endogenous origins. Are VCs more focused on investing in companies that can grow or companies that can be sold? Or, as Gary wonders, are the companies VCs are investing in truly disruptive game-changers, or are they merely incremental innovators? The former being companies that could come into their own as real competitors on the public markets, the latter likely relegated to acquisition and roll-up into Dow Corning, Bosch, or another similarly situated industrial conglomerate.

But I say that like it’s a bad thing. It’s not. But it may be sign of a larger problem. VCs, especially greentech VCs, are investing in companies that are “fun and appealing to them but Wall Street doesn’t care,” says Paul Kedrosky. Those companies include the n+1 solar company with the highly-efficient solar cell and the other other company working on fast-charging technology for Li-Ion EV batteries. The VC herd mentality may end up doing them in in the end. When one firm invests in a cell company, so do the next nine. Same with cellulosic ethanol, same with fuel cells, and on and on. Of the 426,718 solar companies funded in 2007, maybe four represent real value based on a marketable innovation. There’s also the problem that greentech companies take a long time to build. I suspect a lot of investors came into this market in late 2006, dropped $5 million in an A round, and thought they were on their way to success. Five months later they get a call asking if they want to follow on with another $65 million to fund the design of the production process.

Excuse me? What? Oh, yeah. We’ve Got To Build A Factory To Build Our Product. While you were busy downing your favorite aspirin and Lipitor cocktail, the nature of VC investing changed. And with it, the timelines to exit. Some VCs worry that the end of exit opportunities through the public markets will mark the end of the VC industry. I disagree. I think some VCs have started, ever so subtly, to craft companies in ways that exploit the value of their product, and not necessarily the value of their company as a whole. In our next installment, we look at how those product-centric companies are fairing in the frothy M&A market. And by frothy, I mean 1/frothy.

Oh, and just to make sure we’re all on the same page. Does anyone remember the last venture-backed greentech IPO? I think it was Orion Energy Systems, which debuted on the NASDAQ around Christmas 2007 and raised around $80 million. Before that were the dueling IPOs of EnerNOC and Comverge in May and April 2007, respectively. Before that? First Solar in 2006.

Comments [4]

  • steve pluvia 06/30/08 3:39 AM

    Daniel:  once again I read your stuff and feel like I just age a slice of wonder bread; all fluff, no substance.  Is it really news to you that the majority of investors [and VC’s] do poor research and subsequently make bad investments?  Are you really surprised there are few IPO’s in a bad market?  When I read your stuff I wonder if you’re 13yr old kid who hacked the parentguard on his mom’s internet connection.  Kudos if that’s the case—those security features are tuff to crack.

    Steve Pluvia

    Reply
  • daniel englander 06/30/08 6:32 AM

    steve: That’s tuff. But I applaud your effort to spell above a second grade level.

    Regardless, the point here isn’t that investors are doing poor research and making bad investments - by and large they aren’t. The point is that some investors may have misjudged the required depth of their involvement in the private markets. And, to the extent this involves rethinking investment timelines necessary for technologies to mature sufficiently to, a lot of investors have started to worry. They began worrying a few quarters before this data came out. Yes, the capital markets are tight, and IPOs across the board are down as a result. But it is significant that for the first time in 28 years, no venture-backed companies went public. Capital markets have been bad before, but the venture-backed IPOs have continued. So this makes me wonder whether there’s something special about the recent crop of venture investments, or the strategies investors have chosen, or the new markets they’re broaching. If you’ve got something substantive to say about this, by all means, enlighten us.

    Otherwise, it’s not my fault you’re living on peanut butter and kitty litter in your van in the 7-11 parking lot because this was the first quarter in twenty years you decided not to short any stocks. I hear Chapter 11 lawyers are pretty cheap these days.

    Reply
  • steve pluvia 06/30/08 8:27 AM

    Dan,

    Your problem lies in your tender age and wholesale lack of market experience. 

    Yes, there were no Q2 venture based IPOs—but we had very few IPOs from ANY source.  Is this unusual?  Is it a cause for concern? Hell no.  In an economy digesting a real estate market collapse, bank turmoil, historic oil prices and continued ramping oil prices few IPOs would be expected. 

    I traded that 1978 market, I remember how it unfolded, and while you are correct, markets have been bad before [not that you have any perspective on the issue]  we have never faced as many economic challenges at one time, since that time.

    Your lack of market experience has you placing alarming significance to an issue that is frankly expected and understood by anyone with a reasonably small amount of market experience.  Furthermore, in tight capital markets EVERYONE has exit strategy problems—not just VCs.  This is not news of significance to anyone but perhaps yourself.  Unless you count the daily sun rising as surprising.

    Cheers

    Steve Pluvia

    Reply
  • piano tuning kit canada 01/27/09 12:49 PM

    ??? ?? ???????, ?? ? ?????? ????????.

    Reply

Green Light

Greentech Media's Green Light blog covers the full-scope of the greentech world, while expanding the range of our daily news reporting with brief and insightful blog posts from our Greentech Media editors, GTM Research analysts and numerous guest bloggers.

.