Slashdot Mirror


Amid Fiscal Uncertainty, Venture Capital Is Way Down In Silicon Valley

Hugh Pickens writes "With the 'fiscal cliff' just weeks away, Chris O'Brien writes that venture capital fundraising in silicon valley is down, the amount invested is down, the number of folks investing in venture capital is down, and the number of VC firms and partners are down. 'The people I talked to in the industry sounded grim even as they tried to make the case for optimism,' writes O'Brien. 'Still, it remains difficult to identify a clear path for turning things around for the battered venture capitalists who make Silicon Valley hum.' So what's wrong with the VC industry? The problems are many and complex but they can be boiled down to one thing: Not enough exits. For the size of venture capital being raised and invested, there simply aren't enough initial public offerings of stock or mergers and acquisitions to generate the returns that funds need. Venture insiders blame the global economic uncertainty. They believe that is part of the reason that giant corporations, which have amassed huge piles of cash, are just sitting on it, rather then using it to acquire startups. 'The numbers are way down,' said Ray Rothrock, a partner at Venrock. 'All these companies with these fantastic balance sheets, and nobody is really buying anything. With all the uncertainty they're facing with the economy and taxes, buying little companies is way down on their list.'"

20 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Investors may have to make their returns by the companies they invest in making successful products that people want to buy. Disaster.

    1. Re:Oh no by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simple solution: Inflation.

      Want to sit on a pile of cash? Fine. It won't be worth much come next year. Greece and Spain (and the US?) are too deep in debt? No problem. Pay your (fixed) obligations with tomorrow's devalued currency.

      The problem is that the political landscape is being manipulated by people who have tons of cash and demand a risk-free guaranteed ROI. That's what caused the whole mortgage crisis. People with money went to Congress and then Goldman Sachs demanding some sort of paper that had zero risk and paid big interest. And Goldman's Morlocks went to work creating them for all the rich folks upstairs. But then someone blew the horn.

      Sorry. No more free lunch. With return comes risk. Don't like it? Buy a mattress.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Oh no by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think they mind risk so much, it's certain doom they can't abide.

    3. Re:Oh no by tacokill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but inflation is different. The upper classes own assets. Asset values can move up and down during inflation. ie: see gold.

      The poor hold money - dollars. Those only go one direction during inflation: down.

    4. Re:Oh no by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the words "fiscal cliff" has nothing to do with this?

      The problem is that they're expecting a renewed recession when taxes go up and government spending goes down. The government will be taking more money out of the economy and putting less into it.

      Anybody as freaked out by current government borrowing as you describe is simply being hysterical. Sure the deficit at a historical high in absolute terms, but its nowhere near a historical high as percent of GDP. On top of that the government is currently borrowing money at or below the rate of inflation. It'd be insane not to borrow when people are in effect *paying* us to hold onto it for them. Check out the recent ten year treasury rate and compare it to inflation.

      No business would worry about borrowing money at an interest rate below what it can earn by holding onto the cash it already has. That's why *every* large business borrows money, even when it's profitable. It's counter-intuitive if you think of business and government budgeting like they were normal household budgeting, but business and governments aren't like typical private households. Even wealthy *individuals* borrow money when the interest rates are favorable. I once had a wealthy young trust fund kid working for me who borrowed money from the bank to buy a yacht. It made no sense for him to liquidate his investments when those investments earned more than the bank's interest rate.

      There's a time to worry about government borrowing, and that's in a full economy where dollars in the private sector are creating jobs like crazy. Nobody seems to worry about austerity then, when interest rates are high, but they should. But when interest rates are low, suddenly people freak out about borrowing money. It's hysterical fear, that's all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Oh no by tukang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With debt being the exception. If I owe you a dollar, the debt is an asset to you but a liability to me. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of the dollar I have to pay you back with, so it benefits the borrower. Likewise anyone with a mortgage, student loan, auto loan stands to benefit from inflation.

      The question is who holds more debt? Is it the poor or the rich? And the answer isn't clear to me

    6. Re:Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ^ This

      Want to see a bank freak the hell out? Say the word deflation.

      Notice the Fed keeps inflation at a positive rate... When in the past 3-4 years it should have been negative. They instead pushed the peddle to the floor on inflation. Food/energy prices have nearly doubled. Yet wages have stagnated. Yet both of those are not counted in inflation yet are at the root of all goods sold in our country. It is because of the huge amount of debt the US gov has taken on. They want to erode that debt using inflation. But it can not be perceived as too high or you stall out investments.

      Most 'rich' hold a significant amount of debt. It is how they finance huge projects with little risk to their own real assets (stock, bonds, land, metals, companies). They win by a landslide in how much they hold. For example Donald Trump. May look like an idiot (a persona I think he is grooming) but is a rather shrewd guy who has many huge loans out there. Has declared bankruptcy many times. To get creditors off his back. Yet he is still very rich...

      Inflation is very real (and decently high at this point). My parents bought a house in 1970 for about 30k. That same house is now 'worth' 130k. My dads house payment was 130 bucks a month. Same payment today would be just shy of 800 a month.

      Take a couple of macro classes and you will see how amazing 'leveraged' the whole world is.

  2. Alternate theory: by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Much of the VC activity(and startup acquisition by larger outfits) in the valley has been based on absurd speculative bullshit only slightly less risible than pets.com. Now, with the supply of bigger suckers on which to unload your worthless stock in some 'disruptive' Web2.0/mobile/social/bullshit apparently drying up a bit, non-idiots are staying away.

    Good heavens, whatever shall we do?

  3. Bad businesses by devleopard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too little innovation, too many apps like "Mobile photo sharing - FOR CATS!"

    The funding game is dying, slowly. The future is in the 37 Signals and GitHubs of the world. (Both took funding I believe, but only after they were profitable : if the VC is how you keep the lights on, you're doing it wrong) Even more significant are the bootstrapped startups, the 1-4 person operations, that make great products that actually solve problems. (In other words, the anti-Instagram)

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  4. He said asia/canada by codegen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He said Asia/canada not EU. It is true that taxes are higher than in the US. But the overal cost is lower. Before coming back to Academia, I was part of a startup. With the health care support we have in Canada, as well as other benefits, the lower loaded cost of an employee about makes up for the taxes. He also said undertainty. A higher tax rate isn't what kills it, as Warren Buffet has pointed out time and again. Its the endless bickering and inability to settle on a solution that kills it. If the GOP in the house is willing to meet Obama part way, then the situation will improve.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    1. Re:He said asia/canada by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see why. If the GOP meets Obama part way, Obama will just push the envelope even further,

      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem in a nutshell

      The position here is -- If GOP were to ever compromise, even a little bit, they would show weakness and embolden Obama. So the solution is, clearly, to block everything and let the country burn.

      One cannot negotiate when ANY compromise is considered an unacceptable sign of weakness. Can you come up with a reason why would Democrats just give up? It's not really a negotiation when one side is not willing to budge an inch, no matter what. The term for that is "throwing a tantrum"

  5. financial cliff, but US has 11 aircraft carriers by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and is building a 12th. The are also a very long list of unneeded military weapon systems that are still funded and rampant corporate welfare. When conservatives want to talk about real fiscal responsibility and not just making the really rich richer than they might be able to say the words "financial cliff" without me laughing at their pure greed.

  6. Bullshit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is nothing but FUD.

    "Fiscal uncertainty" isn't going to dissuade anyone from making a buck if it can be made.

    And in real terms, in real, honest-to-god terms of providing good lives and good jobs for people right here in this country, I'm not all that sure that "venture capital" really means all that much. Oh, it means a lot to those who have it, and for a few minutes it means something to a handful of their pals, but if there is going to be a resurgence of innovation and growth in this country, it's not going to come from "venture capital". Because, as I said, if there's a buck to be made, even if taxes are high, people will line up to get it, regardless of the tax rates. Remember, this whole thing is over whether or not we're going to go back to the tax rates we had during the Clinton administration when everybody was making money.

    There was venture capital in every hot and cold tap during the 90s, and all we got was this lousy popped bubble.

    Real federal tax rates have never been lower for "venture capital". Is paying 14% really so onerous?

    The whole "John Galt" story shows just how incapable of self-examination our economic elite have become. The notion that if the captains of industry are so important - such unique snowflakes - that if they were to disappear there wouldn't be a line of people ready and able to jump into that spot is such an example of ego run amok. But we already knew the egos of our financial elite have reached escape velocity that they believe they are worth yearly incomes of over 1000 times what the average worker is worth. What kind of self-regard does it take for someone to believe that?

    Let's see how well their little tantrum works out for them.

    Their money has already been on the sidelines. I'm guessing that we're in better shape to do without them than they are to do without us. Fuck 'em.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  7. Yes. Inflation by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It causes devaluation of cash. The only way to avoid it is to invest in something. And with the fed printing money (see QE, QE2, and QE3) we should be seeing it sometime in 2013. I'm hoping late 2013 or early 2014 but that doesn't seem realistic. Now with the type of QE they did, there is supposedly the option of undoing it somehow, but I'm a bit sceptical.

    Why isn't it happening yet? My suspicion is that most of the money went nearly directly to the people who are hoarding it. If it's not circulating it ain't going to cause actual inflation. If this is correct, the Fed truely fucked up. A regulatory and tax climate that allows their last ditch effort to go straight into someones pot of gold would not only eliminate their ability to influence the economy, it would hand it over to someone else ;-(

    It's been said that US multinationals are holding over a trillion dollars in offshore cash. So if we do get some signs of inflation they may just go on a buying spree to the tune of a trillion dollars. Watch for inflation to start small and then spike - at least for prices of things huge companies like to buy.

  8. Re:financial cliff, but US has 11 aircraft carrier by whistlingtony · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm actually responding to the two anonymous trolls that tried to say that welfare was more than the military budget.

    Ahem... Military budget for 2010. 683.7 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    Or, here's a chart.
    http://www.usfederalbudget.us/welfare_budget_2012_4.html
    Looks like Defense is twice as big as the welfare budget.

    It took me 2 minutes to actually look at the data. I guess the two trolls never bothered to look into their own positions. Shame.

    While I'm at it... From Wikipedia

    CBO's preliminary estimates indicate the federal government spent $3.54 trillion on a budget or cash basis during fiscal year (FY) 2012 or 22.6% GDP, down 1.6% vs. FY2011 spending of $3.60 trillion. Spending fell across all major categories except Social Security and Medicare.[20]

    Yup, Obama is out of control! Face it, Republicans blow up the deficit, democrats fix it. Republicans whining about fiscal responsibility are lying. They're the ones that have blown up the federal deficit with stupid unneeded tax cuts and huge military expenditures. Look at a fancy graph of federal deficits against presidencies.... It's freak'in obvious. Conservatives hate facts...

  9. Re:GOP Needs to Understand by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the time for compromise.

    Obama is willing to compromise, as long as he gets everything he wants.

    Ah, projection... What Republicans do to others, they imagine is being done to them.

    The Republicans should have taken the offer they got out of Obama last year, now they'll have to settle for something they like less.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  10. Re:Elections have consequences by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Turn off Fox. They're poisoning your mind, and stripping you of your ability to reason.

    Corporations want the recession to continue. They make record profits during recession. They can use it as an excuse to lay off your coworkers, make you do the work of two people, and pay you less to boot. As if that's not enough, they tell you over and over that you must destroy your safety net and using the saving to cut their taxes, making things even better for them and even worse for you. They are conning you.

    I'd like to refute your claims in greater detail, but the fact is that you haven't provided any details to refute. You're just insisting that Obamacare is somehow destroying the economy, but have you given any thought into how that could even be possible? No, of course not. The nice man on TV said so, and he said a bunch of other words that sounded smart, and he said them so confidently! It must be true!

  11. Re:Good. by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The origin of most of the cash glut recently isn't direct governent bail outs, most of it is due to the massive liquidity injections (a.k.a money printing) being done by the Fed, ECB and various other central banks. They are in a massive race to the bottom to see who can debase their currency faster, juice their exports, and print money to finance massive sovereign debts.

    This money printing is mostly propping up the stock market and corporate profitability. It makes it look like all is well, though in reality the value of the dollars those things are measured in is plunging more than the stock market or corporate balance sheets are actually improving. It is a creating an economy based largely on fantasy, and is creating a global Wiemar Republic.

    What the Fed is doing is also referred to as Financial repression. It is artificially suppressing interest rates, punishing savers, especially seniors who shun the stock market, and giving debtors, including the U.S. government a giant finance your debt for free card. China has been using massive financial repression for over a decade to juice their economy too.

    When central banks start printing money to finance sovereign debt, it is nearly impossible for it to end well. The only question is when will the house of cards they are building collapse.

    --
    @de_machina
  12. Re:Elections have consequences by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You think corporate profits are going through the roof? Great! Buy some stock.

    I did! I made a killing! The markets have done great under Obama. But unemployment stays high because our corporate masters like the fact that they can pressure people into working longer hours for less money. Why would they want to start hiring again when they're getting along just fine as is? And meanwhile the millionaires on Wall Street bitch and moan about how awful it is that they might soon have to pay 20% taxes instead of just 15%, and how we should get that money by taking food and medicine away from poor people instead.

  13. VC is just one way to get funding by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You need the VC money to "get big fast". If you try to grow organically, you will get crushed by those with better judgement.

    Think so? I've worked with a lot of VCs and I assure you that most of them would disagree with you. Most companies are not actually venture backed. Venture capital is only useful for companies with particular funding needs. A typical VC investment will be between $2 million up to maybe $50 million, have a 3-5 year investment horizon, and will be VERY expensive with the VC demanding 25%-60% of the company if not more. Most companies do not fit into the model for VC funding and in fact if you can avoid it you really do not want VC funding because the cost of capital is so extraordinarily high.

    Venture Capital funding is just one of many avenues to fund a business. It is a form of Private Equity but not the only one and certainly not the only way to build a successful tech company. VC money is extremely expensive and VC backed companies demonstrably do not succeed at a higher rate than non-VC backed companies.