2014/03/Ziad K Abdelnour Addressing FPC Event.jpg
Print Print This Page

Blog

Our Thoughts regarding New Exit Strategies for Today’s Venture Capitalists

By : Ziad K. Abdelnour| 7 February 2010
Please Share!TwitterFacebooktumblrGoogle+PinterestLinkedIn

It is a fact that venture capitalism today is not what it used to be. The bountiful returns of the dotcom years are long gone and venture capital (VC) firms are now struggling to exit their investments via initial public offerings (IPOs) or mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Also, a new regulatory landscape is threatening to hinder rather than help the industry, and the companies VCs invest in require watertight strategies for major growth.

But regardless of where their investments are based today, no venture capital firm has been immune to the global downturn. The number of IPOs by venture-backed companies in the U.S. plummeted from 260 in 2000 to 13 in 2009, and VC-backed M&A

I guess one of the major issues today is how — or whether — the much-anticipated recovery of the IPO market would be different from what took place after the dotcom crash.

Reaching back into history and looking at the technology IPO market of the 1970s; one clearly realizes it was like a backwater, with less than half a dozen companies going public each year. Despite IPOs from such future industry bellwethers as Intel and Tandem, the average deal size was around $10 million back then. The market started gaining traction, however, with the IPOs of Apple and Genentech in 1980. In that decade, there were 32 technology IPOs a year, followed by more than 100 technology stock market debuts in the first half of the 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 — the years that experienced the first wave of Internet-related IPOs as well as Amazon’s IPO — there were 240 deals annually, which were followed by the “crazy years” of 1999 and 2000, with nearly 400 deals a year.

As the VC industry picks up steam from its current state, it faces a markedly different environment than it did after the 2000 dotcom bust. After 2000, IPO activity was lean for a couple of years but then recovered. From 2001 through 2007, there were 62 deals a year and an average $11.4 billion a year was raised. In contrast, in 2008 and 2009 each, there were only 18 deals with a value of about $3.5 billion. In a sense, the recent deal levels are more or less reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s.

Other factors that would make the current recovery different? For example, the dotcom bubble was focused on telecoms and the Internet and was mostly a U.S. kind of phenomenon . Hence, the damage was limited in large part to Nasdaq stocks, whose collective value fell some 80% between 2000 and 2003; the broader S&P index was down about 30%.

Big IPOs from the likes of Google and VMWare, and sufficient credit in the markets, helped venture capital fundamentals recover from the dotcom crash, as did the increased role of leveraged buyout (LBO) firms in IPO and M&A. LBO firms accounted for about 25% of the IPO and M&A markets in the mid-2000s, buying big technology companies, taking them private and then taking them public again. However, this time, the crash has been much deeper, broader, much more global. The bust … took 17 months to force the market down 50%, and it was down 50% not just in Nasdaq, but in the S&P, the Dow and most global indices.

The near-disappearance of credit is also striking. It’s really a ‘have and have-not’ market. While each of the top dozen technology companies has $5 billion to $30 billion of cash and a big advantage over the others, credit is largely unavailable to mid-sized companies. It looks like it’s going to take a longer time to come back…. We’re going to need to get the credit flowing in the economy again before things really open up.

The various players orchestrating the deals are also different from 10 years ago. For example, there are fewer underwriters helping to take companies public, following a number of bankruptcies and a wave of consolidation. For those that are still in the game, risk-aversion is the new catchphrase. The big VC companies now sort of have a chokehold on the distribution and they’re not letting companies go public unless they have very, very large revenues and prospects for big market caps.

Also it seems that large investment banks today will not do an IPO under $75 million (bearing in mind that the IPOs of Cisco and Apple were under $50 million each). The institutions have become so large, managing so much capital, that they really don’t have time to pay attention to an IPO, especially a venture capital-staged IPO with less than $100 million in revenue and a market cap of less than $500 million.

The loss of independent research has also affected the market and that void has never been filled again…. The big banks have never found a way to make money by supporting independent research.

Indeed, the playing field among the banks is vastly different than before. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, big names like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs each held between 5% and 10% of the technology IPOs, while the remainder was shared among “boutique” firms such as Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson Stephens, Alex Brown, L.F. Rothschild and Montgomery Securities. The venture capital community was pleased to trust those smaller firms with book running some of their best offerings, like Sun Microsystems and Adobe. Today, it seems like the feeling is if Morgan and Goldman won’t take your company public, it’s not worth it. It’s like saying, if you can’t get your kids into Wharton or Stanford, they might as well work in the coal mines.

One solution is maybe to use this generation’s boutique brokerage firms to lead smaller IPOs for smaller companies. About half a dozen brokerage boutiques are perfectly capable of taking companies public and are willing to do smaller deals.

Until we can get research in the system, until we can get more boutique banks to do smaller underwritings, until we can get institutional attention and get capital coming back, I am afraid the risk-reward ratio will continue to be very difficult and you will have shrinkage of the IPOs.

The IPO and M&A markets are and have always been indeed interlinked. You need a good vibrant capital market to make a good M&A market. Otherwise, you get a lot of dinky M&As. Hence, companies must be encouraged to build long-term, sustainable growth that leads to an IPO, instead of getting them to focus on M&A too early in their development. It’s very hard as a venture capitalist, as a professional board member, to tell a management team, You’re going to build this company to be acquired. When these companies get swallowed by larger entities, the passion dies, the entrepreneurship dies. At some point, if it becomes apparent that an IPO is not the best way out, a company could look at alternatives like M&A deals.

I believe M&A should not be the only exit strategy for a company. Companies that operate with the sole objective of being bought have a much narrower focus than others.

IPOs were once within reach of companies with annual revenues of between $30 million and $50 million, a few consecutive profitable quarters, a good management team, and good investment bankers and attorneys. But this changed after the dotcom crash, and investors wanted safety in large, very mature companies with revenues of $150 million or more. That has really sort of been the market bar for the last seven years.

The upshot? Companies now have to wait longer to go public, stretching the investment period of their VC backers. All of a sudden, the VCs who are used to getting companies public within three to five years of the first venture round need to fund them for three or five more years.

At the same time, returns have been shrinking: 1998 was really the last vintage that made significant amounts of money. Returns on venture funds raised in seven of the last 10 years have been negative. In only three years — 2003, 2004 and 2005 — could VCs buy cheap and get their investments public before the next market crash and show any positive returns … and they were all single-digit returns.

Moves to tighten regulation are also hindering the venture capital industry’s ability to return to health. Not only has Sarbanes-Oxley increased the cost of running a public company, but also the plethora of regulations has meant companies have a hard time finding board members … because of the big regulatory burden. Ultimately, over-regulation will stymie innovation, which, along with technology, is one of the greatest assets the U.S. has besides our freedom. The country has the ability to commercialize technology better and faster than anywhere else in the world, and that is really under siege today.

The current U.S. laws on directors’ liability and disclosure are good enough and don’t need to be changed. All this rhetoric … about say-on-pay, cap-on-pay and pay-tied-to-performance is really missing the real issue.

I wonder what the current Obama Administration is thinking when considering to tax VC firms on their “carried interest” (i.e.: the profit earned from returns their investors make from the start-ups they finance). What problem are we trying to fix? Venture capital returns more to the country in taxes and by creating jobs than capital gains or carried-interest taxes ever would.

In the VC industry, we take .2% of GDP and we generate 21% of GDP. Tell me what’s broken about that? Why isn’t that a good thing? Go figure.

A lot of times, good intentions on the regulatory side have unintended consequences. In the case of Spitzer and the investment banks’ conflict-of-interest issue, the solution could simply focus on better disclosures concerning which reports written by the analysts involve companies that are the bank’s clients. But the regulation went too far by prohibiting research analysts from being paid from the fees generated by the investment banking business. That’s great, except there aren’t really any other fees in the business to pay analysts, because the trading revenues are going to zero, and as a result, most of the talented analysts have left the business to work at hedge funds, private equity or VC firms.

Between 40% and 50% of Nasdaq-listed companies today have no analysts tracking their stocks. We have to get back to some common sense.

As the IPO market struggles with those issues, M&A transactions have become the dominant form of exit. However, M&A isn’t generating sufficient returns for investors: In the third quarter of 2009, only two of the 22 disclosed deals had a return of 10 times or higher.

Meanwhile, strategic buyers lose confidence when stock prices fall. You need the CEOs of the big companies to have confidence, predictability and visibility into their own business before they’re willing to pay imaginative prices. I am afraid the current credit crisis is worsening the situation.

All the same, the M&A market may have bottomed out in 2008. M&A volumes have improved from $77 billion in 2008 to $90 billion in 2009, while interest rates are still low and confidence is returning. However, we’re not recovering as fast as people would hope. There is additional pressure on companies to focus on growth and the current price-equity (PE) levels in the stock markets are still too high for comfort. If things don’t really start growing, there’s risk in PE levels right now.

While the returns may not be as outrageous as in the boom years, the VC industry could generate really good solid internal rates of return of between 20% and 30%. A few big innovations — in, say, digital technology, life sciences or green technology — could help the industry rebound. Some people think green tech might be the way that we’re going to get it rolling again, let’s hope so.

For starters, I strongly believe you’ve got to get the research analysts back in, which means somebody has to lobby to get the Spitzer initiative rolled back. The venture capital industry would be the biggest beneficiary of that.

Bottom Line: It’s not time to panic and over-regulate the VC industry, but to step back and … recognize that we’re losing ground … for the first time.

The fundamental changes can’t be ignored. You had 9/11 and all of the problems it brings. You’ve had this economic crisis … globalization and … the emergence of alternative markets. These are pretty big body blows to the system. All the same, there’s nothing broken with the venture model, even if IPO timeframes are stretched from five years to 10 years. We can all assume that’s what life is going to be like.

Looking forward to doing business with you and to continue being your resource for deals, capital, relationships and advice.

Your feedback as always is greatly appreciated.

Thanks much for your consideration.

Comments

  1. Riyad HRiyad H

    I agree with Mr. Ziad’s idea , now and always , that No Need for sure for any regualtions to any alternative investment related industries ( including VC, Private Equities or Hedge funds ) This industries should be kept liberal to be creative . The investors who should educate and regualte themselves , not to involve in those businesses if they dont understand the whole concept clearly. Regards

  2. Ziad NassarZiad Nassar

    I believe the most important point you make is the issue of independent research and innovation. And, you are right. Without that, the US is liable to lose its international lead very quickly. The problem today is the simultaneous absence of seed money investors and credit. Small companies and inventors used to be able to acquire bank credit, even if it was in the form of personal credit lines to finance their initial design and marketing operations to get something going that will attract investors’ attention. As a small business owner, I can attest that this is no longer possible. In fact the banks are cutting our existing credit lines as soon as we pay them back, leaving us without enough working capital, let alone investment in any thing new. There may be a niche to consider here, particularly in light of the low returns from second stage VC investments. Technological advancement has made it much easier for start-ups to grow than in past decades (assuming they have the initial seed money and working capital, and do not run out of cash before they succeed). This is leaving much less growth for second stage investors. Why don’t VC firms look at earlier investment stages in promising products and services? Of course, the plans and management teams have to be proven. But, waiting for the company to take off and generate millions in free cash flow may be missing the highest rates of growth in this market. Given that VC investments are currently generating negative returns, there does not seem to be much risk in directing some funds in this direction.

  3. Ed TorresEd Torres

    Great and dense information! Speaking on green technologies, what is your take on energy efficient automobiles? Looks like Tesla Motors is getting lots of attention and perhaps they will be a good IPO candidate someday.

Leave a Reply

Top