Comments on: Venture capital is dead! Long live venture capital!

By: valto

valto — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:20:52 +0000

Exactly right, you nailed it with this reply. Also it's a problem for the “old set of VC's'” whose funds are structured for BIG BETS ONLY and therefore can not participate in the capital efficient new startups because the “gap is too big” in more than one way.

By: charles.merriam

charles.merriam — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:10:31 +0000

The models are adjusting to the harsh business and regulatory environment of the last eight years. The taxing of stock options on pre-IPO companies, the large AMT liquidity hits, additional S.O. regulation, denial of pooling of interest, a decreased funding of sciences, and a decreased emphasis on technology. Like it or not, Silicon Valley has always been very sensitive to national politics.

While the new administration seems to have the “make stuff and sell it” rhetoric, little outside science funding has changed.

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:06:15 +0000

i agree, danny. lots of fear and cya (and focus on maintaining management fees and cush lifestyle). are you going to the canadian venture event in banff this October? iâll be speaking there.

By: sethlevine

sethlevine — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:06:10 +0000

part of the problem shai is that i donât think they really know what they mean. i suspect itâs a general âthings arenât workingâ where things mean 1) their ability to raise capital; 2) their ability to predict good companies and 3) their ability to exit them. what i think it means is that there are too many venture capitalists out there and there is a shift in the market from vcâs who sit in their offices, have companies come to them and who prognosticate/pontificate to a new set of vcâs who are much more active, develop, follow and shape views on major technology trends and frankly just work hard. the former i expect will see their ranks significantly thinned. the latter will hopefully prosper!

By: Shai

Shai — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:59:07 +0000

Seth, from your perspective, when someone states “the vc model is broken”, what do you think they are referring to? Reason I ask, is that there are many definitions of what “broken” means, so would like to hear your thoughts on this. From my perspective “broken” could be referring to few items mainly 1) too much money in venture 2) lack of exits 3) exit horizon being extended – if my definition is the case, saying “broken” is not an incorrect statement.

By: Danny Robinson

Danny Robinson — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:43:43 +0000

Fantastic post. I'm an Entrepreneur turned VC specifically because I believe now is the best time to be investing in new companies. After all, I've got the disease that most entrepreneurs have: the ability to see the opportunity in any situation. I recently attended the CVCA (Canadian Venture Capital Association) yearly shin-dig in Calgary. Tim Draper keynoted. I was surprised to witness the amount of fear and CYA from VCs who are really just worried about their management fees. They claim the issue is that there are no exits and their portfolio companies are unable to raise additional cash. The funny thing is that, so far, In June there has already been 55 acquisitions. (See my tweet about that earlier today http://twitter.com/dannyrobinson/status/239330458... )