i digg the quote on True Ventures frontpage

 

Michigan venture capital event expands

David Brophy of Ann Arbor is an associate finance professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business in Ann Arbor. He says he thinks we as a state have learned a lesson about diversification.

 

David Brophy of Ann Arbor is an associate finance professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business in Ann Arbor. He says he thinks we as a state have learned a lesson about diversification. / REGINA H. BOONE/Detroit Free Press

In 1981, University of Michigan professor David Brophy launched an event that gave fledgling companies hungry for capital the opportunity to pitch their businesses to venture capital firms.

Back then, Brophy’s Growth Capital Symposium attracted 10 companies in a state that had just two venture capital firms.

Today, three decades later, the event, which is hosted by U-M’s Zell Lurie Institute, has become one of the top venture capital conferences in the Midwest. This year’s symposium will take place Tuesday and Wednesday at the Marriott in Ypsilanti and will feature presentations from 41 companies. The state is now home to 19 venture capital firms.

In the past decade, more than 300 companies have made presentations at the annual conference. About 70% of these businesses have raised $1.7 billion in capital. And so far, nearly 20% of the firms that received funding have generated successful returns for their investors.

The Free Press recently sat down with Brophy, an associate finance professor and director of the Office for the Study of Private Equity Finance at U-M’s Ross School of Business. Far from slowing down, the professor who started the first venture capital course in the country in 1982 continues to teach several popular classes and is working on research projects about private equity, global manufacturing and innovation in the auto industry.

Some excerpts:

QUESTION: At last year’s symposium, you lamented the fact that Michigan-based foundations, state pension funds and university endowments have not been investing in venture capital funds headquartered in the state. What are your thoughts about this situation?

ANSWER: The leader in providing capital for our local venture capital funds has been the state. For a lot of our free-market entrepreneurs … that would not be the first expectation. We’re not doing it in the private sector so the state has to do it. We need more capital for venture funds.

Q: Years ago, you wrote a book about the importance of diversifying Michigan’s economy. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, do you believe the state’s economy is more diversified today?

A: It is getting more diversified. Michigan still has a pretty good lifestyle. We will be able to attract people who will find new things to do that will result in a more diversified economy. Did we learn our lesson? I think so.

Diversification by itself is not the answer. You have to diversify with industries that pay well. We need to find what it is we do best. We’ve let ourselves over the last 50 years develop a sense of entitlement. We’ve got to shake that. Get entrepreneurial.

Q: Venture capital nationwide has hit a rough patch, attracting fewer investment dollars. What is your outlook for the industry?

A: I have lived through the death of venture capital four times. I don’t think venture capital is dead. Venture capital is taking new shapes. It is resizing.

Q: What is your advice for entrepreneurs who need venture capital but are struggling to find investors?

A: Don’t give up.

 

What is your number?

More

5 Things You Should Never Say While Negotiating

5 Things You Should Never Say While Negotiating

If you’re new to negotiating or find it difficult, here are some missteps to avoid.

By Mike Hofman |  @mikehofman   | Jan 31, 2011

Getty

Whenever you negotiate, remember that it pays to stay calm

Related Tools

Every entrepreneur spends some time haggling, whether it is with customers, suppliers, investors, or would-be employees. Most business owners are street smart, and seem to naturally perform well in negotiations. You probably have a trick or two—some magic phrases to say, perhaps—that can help you gain the upperhand. But, often, the moment you get into trouble in a negotiation is when something careless just slips out. If you are new to negotiation, or feel it is an area where you can improve, check out these tips on precisely what not to say.

1. The word “between.” It often feels reasonable—and therefore like progress—to throw out a range. With a customer, that may mean saying “I can do this for between $10,000 and $15,000.” With a potential hire, you could be tempted to say, “You can start between April 1 and April 15.” But that word between tends to be tantamount to a concession, and any shrewd negotiator with whom you deal will swiftly zero-in on the cheaper price or the later deadline. In other words, you will find that by saying the word between you will automatically have conceded ground without extracting anything in return.

Dig Deeper: The Art of Effective Negotiation 

2. “I think we’re close.” We’ve all experienced deal fatigue: The moment when you want so badly to complete a deal that you signal to the other side that you are ready to settle on the details and move forward. The problem with arriving at this crossroads, and announcing you’re there, is that you have just indicated that you value simply reaching an agreement over getting what you actually want. And a skilled negotiator on the other side may well use this moment as an opportunity to stall, and thus to negotiate further concessions. Unless you actually face extreme time pressure, you shouldn’t be the party to point out that the clock is loudly ticking in the background. Create a situation in which your counterpart is as eager to finalize the negotiation (or, better yet: more eager!) than you are.

Dig Deeper: Creating Win/Win Negotiations 

3. “Why don’t you throw out a number?” There are differing schools of thought on this, and many people believe you should never be the first person in a negotiation to quote a price. Let the other side start the bidding, the thinking goes, and they will be forced to show their hands, which will provide you with an advantage. But some research has indicated that the result of a negotiation is often closer to what the first mover proposed than to the number the other party had in mind; the first number uttered in a negotiation (so long as it is not ridiculous) has the effect of “anchoring the conversation.” And one’s role in the negotiation can matter, too. In the book Negotiation, Adam D. Galinsky of Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and Roderick I. Swaab of INSEAD in France write: “In our studies, we found that the final outcome of a negotiation is affected by whether the buyer or the seller makes the first offer. Specifically, when a seller makes the first offer, the final settlement price tends to be higher than when the buyer makes the first offer.”

Dig Deeper: Bargaining for Advantage 

4. “I’m the final decision maker.” At the beginning of many negotiations, someone will typically ask, “Who are the key stakeholders on your side, and is everyone needed to make the decision in the room?” For most entrepreneurs, the answer, of course, is yes. Who besides you is ever needed to make a decision? Isn’t one of the joys of being an entrepreneur that you get to call the shots? Yet in negotiations, particularly with larger organizations, this can be a trap. You almost always want to establish at the beginning of a negotiation that there is some higher authority with whom you must speak prior to saying yes. In a business owner’s case, that mysterious overlord could be a key investor, a partner, or the members of your advisory board. The point is, while you will almost certainly be making the decision yourself, you do not want the opposing negotiators to know that you are the final decision maker, just in case you get cornered as the conversation develops. Particularly in a high-stakes deal, you will almost certainly benefit from taking an extra 24 hours to think through the terms. For once, be (falsely) humble: pretend like you aren’t the person who makes all of the decisions.

Dig Deeper: 7 Tips for Masterful Negotiating

5. “Fuck you.” The savviest negotiators take nothing personally; they are impervious to criticism and impossible to fluster. And because they seem unmoved by the whole situation and unimpressed with the stakes involved, they have a way of unnerving less-experienced counterparts. This can be an effective weapon when used against entrepreneurs, because entrepreneurs tend to take every aspect of their businesses very personally. Entrepreneurs often style themselves as frank, no-nonsense individuals, and they can at times have thin skin. But whenever you negotiate, remember that it pays to stay calm, to never show that a absurdly low counter-offer or an annoying stalling tactic has upset you. Use your equanimity to unnerve the person who is negotiating with you. And if he or she becomes angry or peeved, don’t take the bait to strike back. Just take heart: You’ve grabbed the emotional advantage in the situation. Now go close that deal.

Dig Deeper: The Ultimate Guide to Negotiating

Did we miss a great negotiating tip? If so, let us know; post your feedback in the comments section below.

VC investment in the games industry « The Equity Kicker

I attended a lunch event today kindly hosted by law firm Osborne Clarke and Nicholas Lovell (co author of our “50 questions you should ask before raising venture capital” series of blog posts – next instalment tomorrow on Nicholas’s Gamesbrief blog).  There were about twenty of us at the lunch, with a roughly equal split between games entrepreneurs and VCs, and the aim of the event was to stimulate dialogue between the two sides and start to eliminate some misunderstandings between the two groups.

As an aside, when I played back the conversation in my head it seemed to me that the communication gap between VCs and games entrepreneurs is a variant of the gap between VCs and all entrepreneurs.  From the entrepreneur side that gap is usually described as a lack of risk appetite from potential investors, or sometimes a misunderstanding of the level or risk involved, and from the VC side we often feel that the entrepreneur sees less risk in her business than we do.

On the back of the lunch I thought it might be helpful to set out some of the characteristics that make a games company attractive for venture investment.  A couple of caveats are in order first:

  1. This is only a guide and it is more than possible that DFJ Esprit, or any other fund, would make an investment in a games company with none of these characteristics
  2. Many companies won’t need investment by the time they develop the characteristics I describe, and earlier stage funds than ours might work with a shorter list, and in particular they may by happy with less evidence of success
  3. The characteristics I describe below are supplementary to the standard venture requirements for big market, good product and great team – in fact they are probably best viewed as indicators that the market is structurally attractive (as opposed to merely ‘big’)

For me the quintessential VC games investment is in a games developer/publisher that is one of the first to exploit a new platform.  Patrick O’Luanaigh of nDreams gave a brief talk at the lunch and he identified being early to a new platform as one of four viable strategies for games businesses.  I would agree with that, and even go a little further and say it is the best strategy, provided the platform is an attractive one.

Startups that have recently been successful with this strategy include:

  • ngmoco, early to the iPhone, recently acquired by DeNA for $303m (plus $100m earnout) on 2009 revenues of $3.2m
  • Zynga, early to Facebook, still private, but slated for IPO with shares trading at a $5.5bn valuation (this may well be artificially inflated due to the limited number of shares available)
  • Playfish, early to Facebook, acquired by EA last year for a rumoured $300m (plus $100m earnout)
  • Jamdat, early to mobile, IPO in 2004 which took it up to c$800m in value.  Jamdat was alter acquired by EA

By now you might be wondering what makes a platform attractive – I would posit the following:

  • first, the obvious one – size – to get the big exit you have to believe that tens or hundreds of millions of people will play games on the new platform
  • a reason to believe a startup can prevail versus larger and better funded competition – that often takes the form of some insight or knowledge about the new platform which larger games companies will take a while to figure out – with Facebook that was a combination of the idea that new and exciting game mechanics were made possible by social, an understanding that Facebook offered a viral distribution model, a view that social networks would be huge for games, and an idea that games could be monetised by virtual goods
  • the ability to launch a handful of games within the lifetime of the investment – one of the attractive things about new platforms is that game development costs start low and only rise once the success of the platform has been proven
  • some early success, both for the company and the platform – in practice this usually means one or two games launched
  • a view that the platform will be stable and that the platform owner won’t be able to appropriate all the value for themselves – with new platforms that usually means there are alternatives to choose from, be they multiple social networks or multiple mobile platforms

There are a couple of categories of games company that we have been looking which don’t have these characteristics and that I want to call out as also being attractive – firstly companies selling software to the growing ranks of independent games developers, and secondly games developers/publishers with a new angle on mature platforms (e.g. I was talking to a guy today who is building a social games company which sounded interesting despite the fact that the Facebook platform is mature – his angle is localisation of games for non US markets enabled by incredibly detailed analytics).

He nails it!

Technology wins most US venture capital deals in strong Q2 – BusinessWeek

Technology wins most US venture capital deals in strong Q2

July 17, 2010, 5:29 AM EDT

The amount of money people put into U.S. venture capital investments nearly returned to pre-recession levels in the second quarter, with most deals going to information technology companies, according to Dow Jones VentureSource.

The market research group said venture investors put US$7.7 billion into U.S. companies in the second quarter, the highest quarterly total since the third quarter of 2008, when investments hit $8.4 billion. The number of deals done in the second quarter, 744, beat the 699 deals from the third quarter of 2008.

Last year during the second quarter, a time when the global economy was just starting to recover, venture investments totaled $6.1 billion.

“Deal activity and capital invested in venture-backed companies is once again near levels seen before the start of the economic recession in 2008,” said Jessica Canning, global research director for Dow Jones VentureSource, in a statement on Saturday.

Information technology won the second quarter’s highest deal count with 231 deals worth $1.9 billion, while healthcare drew the most money, $2.7 billion in 201 deals.

Software took most of the money aimed at IT, in 156 deals worth $908 million.

The largest single venture deal of the second quarter, $350 million, went to the energy sector’s Better Place, a Palo Alto, California company that makes products related to electric vehicles, such as batteries, battery switching stations, charging products, software and more.

“The giants of Silicon Valley are typically of the information technology type, from Google to Intel, Facebook to Microsoft. Now that the cleantech industry is running alongside the IT industry as the high-growth place to be, we see human talent migrating from one industry to the other,” Better Place says on its website.

Related Articles

Copyright IDG News ServiceTaipei Bureau

This is just great news for entrepreneurs!