Notable News: "Read All About It"

1)    Chris Dixon “What Carries You Up Will Also Bring You Down”

2)    Mark Peter Davis “Evolve Your Financial Model”

3)    Entrepreneur “10 World Changing Green Trends”

4)    John Addison “Al Gore Prioritizes Energy Innovation”

5)    SAI “10 Huge Successes Born From Early Failures”

Raising Capital (8): Eyes Wide Shut... Welcome to the Masked Ball

(click on photo for the video of this scene)

This is part of my Series' on Venture Capital and Entrepreneurial Culture.

Over the years it’s been real privilege for me to mentor friends and acquaintances of mine who at one point or another in their careers have decided to make the leap into the start-up game.  I happened to have had the particular advantage of starting early and so carry with me the proverbial scars on my back and psychic black-and-blue marks so reminiscent of the trade.  It’s these same lumps that I always hope to help first-time entrepreneurs avoid.

Perhaps the most valuable counsel I can ever give to someone occurs right around the time they begin to raise capital to fund their company. This may well be the most vulnerable point of all in the life-cycle of a start-up for many reasons. One wrong move can literally mean the difference between success and a world of pain. Here’s truly where lack of experience, even in the smartest of people, can mean sheer disaster. I’ll start with the most important rule of all:  

You need to know who you are dealing with.

Through no fault of their own, first time entrepreneurs fresh out of school, an academic lab or who have worked for years at big companies generally have no concept of the cast of characters that populate the early-stage ecosystem. If you have just emerged from this sort of cocoon, you no longer enjoy the invisible “protection” your old position or firm’s name provided and hardly realize how vulnerable you are.  Essentially, you’ve arrived at a sort of Masked Ball, eyes wide shut, with no concept of who is around you.

Inevitably you will run into certain masked characters that may appear in any number of guises. Their firm might have the words “Capital” or  “Ventures” in it, or they may say that they are part of a “group of investors”, and they will talk about the many startup companies they have “worked with”. Certainly they will discuss how much they would like to help you with your funding needs. But beware…

You may be in the midst of being initiated into the shadowy world of the “broker-dealer”, the “investment banker”, the “middle-man”. At some point you may well discover that he has no money to invest in your company whatsoever. Instead, he will want to “help you” raise capital for a fee, taking a percentage of the money raised for himself and perhaps a retainer and warrants to boot. It’s perfectly legal and I will say that there are indeed some reputable people operating in this business. But these are few and far between.

Jason Calcanis and Fred Wilson have recently published some posts, (here and here), describing yet another masked character on the scene- namely, the type of angel group that charges extremely hefty fees, (thousands of dollars), to entrepreneurs who wish to pitch them.  This is definitely a character to avoid.  Another type that needs to be vetted carefully is the one who tells you he's got a bunch of shell companies on the bulletin board stock exchanges and that with a flourish of his cape he can take your company public with a reverse merger. Warning bells should go off immediately.

The bottom line is that although there are some notable exceptions, most of these masked characters generally do not have your best interest in mind and I have both witnessed and been told of dozens of situations where unwitting entrepreneurs have been victimized by them. My advice is simple. If you are trying to raise capital for your start-up, ask around first, do your homework and talk to half a dozen or more entrepreneurs with funded startups about their experiences. Also, try to find a good mentor while you’re at it. In every community there are reputable angel investors, legitimate angel groups and of course a handful of early-stage venture firms that have money to invest if they like what they see.

Notable News: "Read All About It"

1) Bo Peabody (WPost) “Twitter.org?”

2) John Tozzi “Smart Grid Will Spur Energy Entrepreneurship”

3) The Deal “Angel Investors Fly to Quality”

4) Scott Anthony “What Baseball Can Teach Us About Innovation”

5) Reuters “Angel Investor Makes A Mint”

A Sampling of Commercial Products Using Columbia University Technology

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Above I’ve posted a graphic showing some of the many products that have been developed in whole or in part from the intellectual property emerging from Columbia University’s many labs. Almost all of these represent IP licensed directly to industry by my colleagues at Tech Ventures, Columbia’s Technology Transfer Office. One can see everything here from life-improving and sustaining drugs to BluRay technology to the technology behind the Iphone’s screens.  With an average of 50 industry licenses, 100 sponsored research agreements, and 12+ spinoffs per year coming from Columbia alone, one can see that university tech transfer across the country has had an enormous benefit to society. The original vision behind the Bayh-Dole Act is definitely working.

For Part Eighteen in this Series, click here

Notable News: "Read All About It"

1) Silicon Alley Insider "Working Hard is Overrated"

2) VentureHype "Ready to Become an Angel Investor?"

3) WSJ "Where Twitter Ranks in Venture Funding History"

4) VentureBeat "Green Investing Bounces Back From Recession"

5) Larry Cheng "Who is the Venture Capitalist's Customer?"

Some Examples of Private Sales and IPO's from Columbia University's Startup Portfolio

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 In the coming weeks I’ll be discussing the popular Entrepreneur Office Hours Program we launched at Columbia University’s Venture Lab some months ago. The program is open to anyone in the Columbia community and is scheduled on a rolling basis by appointment.

In the meantime, for all you fledgling entrepreneurs out there in universities around the country and overseas, I thought I’d begin to post some inspirational information on some of the successful exits Columbia’s portfolio companies have enjoyed over the years. Here are a few examples below. 

Aton Pharma (Acquired by Merck for $150 million; NYSE: MRK)

http://www.merck.com/

The company is developing cancer drug targets based on research from R. Breslow of Chemistry and Sloan Kettering technology. Lead candidate is in Phase I/II clinical trials. The company was acquired by Merck for $150 million on February 2004.

CallStreet (Acquired by FactSet for $7 million)

http://www.callstreet.com/

CallStreet is the leading provider of corrected and formatted transcripts of management conference calls to the investment community. Hundreds of leading firms rely on CallStreet for the most accurate, highest quality content available. The company was acquired by FactSet in May 2004.

Corixa (Acquired by GSK for $300 million)

http://www.gsk.com/

Corixa is a biotechnology company involved in the identification of novel genes. The company develops immunotherapeutics that treat and prevent autoimmune diseases, cancer, and infectious diseases by understanding and directing the immune system. Corixa was acquired by GSK for $300 million on May 2005.

CoTherix/Exhale Therapeutics (Acquired by Actelion Pharmaceuticals; NASDAQ: CTRX)

http://www.cotherix.com

CoTherix is a biopharmaceutical company focused on licensing, developing, and commercializing therapeutic products for the potential treatment of cardiovascular diseases. CoTherix went public at the NASDAQ for $30 million in October 2005 and was purchased for $420 million by Actelion in November, 2006.

Electro-Optical Sciences (NASDAQ: MELA)

http://www.eo-sciences.com

EOS is a medical device company focused on the design and development of a noninvasive, point-of-care instrument to assist in the early diagnosis of melanoma. EOS went public at the NASDAQ for $20 million in October 2005.

Memory Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: MEMY)

http://www.memorypharma.com/

Memory Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company, is focused on developing innovative drugs for the treatment of debilitating central nervous system disorders, many of which exhibit significant impairment of memory and other cognitive function. The company went public at the NASDAQ for $35 million on April 2004 and was acquired by Roche in 2008.

Mycrocept (Acquired by Healthpoint)

http://www.healthpoint.com/divisions/surgical/

Mycrocept develops, markets, and distributes a variety of innovative pharmaceutical infection control systems, its flagship product being an antibacterial surgical hand scrub to the hospital market. The company was acquired by Healthpoint for an undisclosed amount in October 2005.

Nephros (AMEX: NEP)

http://www.nephros.com/

Nephros was founded in 1997 by Columbia University health professionals, scientists, and engineers to improve the quality of life for the end stage renal disease patient, while addressing the critical needs of the care provider. The company went public at the AMEX for $12.6 million in September 2005.

ParAllele Biosciences (Acquired by Affimetrix; NASDAQ: AFFX; Department-Genomics and Development, Eric Schon)

https://www.affymetrix.com/corporate/parallele.affx

ParAllele Bioscience is now part of Affymetrix. Not only does ParAllele bring innovative assay technologies to the Affymetrix technology portfolio, but working with their talented team of scientists, Affymetrix can continue to build on the underlying molecular inversion probe technology while expanding the applications capability of the GeneChip® platform. The company was acquired by Affymetrix for $120 million in October 2005.

Pharmacopeia Drug Discovery (LGND: NASD)

www.pharmacopeia.com

Pharmacopeia is a biopharmaceutical company developing small-molecule therapeutics to meet the needs of large patient populations suffering from significant unmet medical needs. Pharmacopeia's programs leverage the company's immunobiology expertise and are focused on diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis. The company was purchased by Ligand Pharmaceuticals in 2008.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: PGNX)

http://www.progenics.com/

Progenics is a biopharmaceutical company focusing on the development and commercialization of innovative therapeutic products to treat the unmet medical needs of patients with debilitating conditions and life-threatening diseases. Their principal programs are directed toward symptom management and supportive care, human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, infection, and cancer. The company has four product candidates in clinical development and several others in preclinical development.

Renovis (NASDAQ: RNVS)

Renovis was a science-driven, biopharmaceutical company that sought to discover, develop, and commercialize therapeutics for major medical needs in the areas of neurological and inflammatory diseases. The company went public at the NASDAQ for $66 million in February 2004.

Sentigen (Acquired by Invitrogen; NASDAQ: IVGN)

http://www.sentigen.com/

Sentigen Biosciences, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Sentigen Holding, has developed a proprietary drug discovery platform that has the potential to change the paradigm of modern-day pharmaceutical discovery and development. The company was acquired by Invitrogen for $26 million in September 2006.

SGX Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: SGXP)

http://www.sgxpharma.com/

SGX Pharmaceuticals is focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative cancer therapeutics. Its mission is to provide patients with life-changing therapies through the dedication, innovation, and excellence of its employees. The company went public at the NASDAQ for $24 million in February 2006 and was subsequently bought by Ely Lilly & Co. in 2008.

Skinetics (Acquired by Sirna Therapeutics Inc., which was subsequently acquired by Merck; NYSE: MRK)

http://www.sirna.com/

Based on technology from Dr. Angela Christiano's lab in Dermatology, Skinetics focuses on hair loss and growth. The company was acquired by Sirna for $2 million in December 2004, and was subsequently acquired by Merck.

System Management ARTS (Acquired by EMC)

http://www.emc.com/products/software/smarts/smarts_family/index.jsp

System Management ARTS is a leading developer of software to automate management of complex networked systems and identify network problems in real time. The company was acquired by EMC for $260 million in December 2004.

For Part Seventeen in in this Series, click here

Notable News: "Read All About It"

1) WSJ "America's CTO Challenges Tech Sector"

2) NYTimes "Twitter Confirms New Funding"

3) D. Shah "12 Facts About Entrepreneurs That May Surprise You"

4) This Is Going To Be Big "Retraining Wall Street"

5) Scott Anthony "My Best Innovation Advice? Be Promiscuous"

Breaking the Century Mark: Celebrating 100 University Spinoffs at Columbia University

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Upon spinning-off 13 companies from Columbia University in FY 2009, we at the Venture Lab realized that we’d now eclipsed the century mark with over 100 spinoff companies historically. We were also heartened by the fact that over 30 of these had been venture-backed at some point in their life-cycle, over 20 had either been sold or gone public and among them they had created in excess of 1500 jobs and raised over $1 Billion in venture capital.

It’s a testament to all the great work being carried out by the faculty and grad students in the 7,000 plus labs at the University, by the business school’s entrepreneurship center and by the talented entrepreneurs and investors who stepped up to take fledgling ideas and transform them into commercial ventures.

It’s also just a snapshot of the emerging behemoth of university entrepreneurship being loosed upon campuses around the country. 

(Above find just a few of Columbia University’s portfolio companies)

For Part Sixteen in in this Series, click here

Google Acquires University Spin-off ReCAPTCHA

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Another success story in the annals of university spin-offs hit the wires today. 

Hearty congrats to MacArthur Genius Luis von Ahn and his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon School of Computer Science. Their spin-off company, ReCaptcha was acquired today by Google. You can find Google’s announcement here and additional information here. 

The company came up with a clever and effective variation on traditional CAPTCHAs by using words scanned from old books and archives that computers find difficult to read.  In fact, more than 100,000 sites are currently using this technology. Google will go beyond this initial application however and intends to use the technology to greatly improve some of its own text and archival scanning projects, including Google Books. 

For Part Fifteen in in this Series, click here

The “X” Factor in Business

 

This is part of my Series on Entrepreneurial Culture.

Much as it has with most other sectors, the economic downturn has taken its toll on the early-stage ecosystem.  Many angels have curled up into fetal position for a while, a good number of VC funds are simply running on fumes and lots of startups are having a difficult time getting traction and are consequently running out of operating capital. By necessity people keep up appearances but plenty of old hands out there know what the deal is. There’s no getting around it- it’s just been tough.

I won't descend into cliché by expounding upon the inevitable “silver-lining” or the “positives” in all this. I will simply say that I have observed that a by-product of these trying times has been a sense of clarity imposing itself almost everywhere. Everything has become very basic in that so many early-stage companies are simply fighting to survive and to get through all this. Entrepreneurs are in hard-core bootstrap mode, the universities and the city are pitching-in trying to do their part, and the local entrepreneurship communities are congregating and banding together like they never have before. There’s something absolutely special going on in this city and I’ve been heartened by it. In my work as an entrepreneur in the university space and as an angel I have the privilege of meeting and working with dozens of entrepreneurial teams each year and the camaraderie and enthusiasm so many of them possess in the face of all this is inspiring.

There’s something else that has been reinforced to me in all this. It’s what I call the “X Factor” in business. When someone in a university lab for example, makes a shocking scientific breakthrough in an area with a large commercial market- it is as if there were never such a thing as a recession. The sun suddenly emerges in full force and the dark skies are a distant memory. Investors and entrepreneurs get on planes, trains and automobiles from near and far and converge in full force- money is suddenly plentiful, the absence of a management team is a mere detail and the future is unlimited. The somber story-line I’ve painted in the paragraphs above (and that the media repeats ad-nauseum) is suddenly rendered meaningless.  When Vinod Khosla decides to raise a couple of new clean tech funds, again, the mainstream narrative is eviscerated and he raises over one billion dollars with a wave of his hand. Similarly, when the likes of an Andreessen feels it’s his turn, a cool $300 million plus materializes for his new fund.

My message in all this? Simply that nothing is as it seems. That the “new story” can be written at any time, by anyone, regardless of the conventional mainstream narrative or the state of the economy. If you’ve got a me-too company or an incremental improvement on a product that already exists, or if you’re not fully committed to the venture- well, it’s a safe bet that convention will apply. But if you’ve got something magnificent, something bold and clever and possibly disruptive, well then… you may yourself be that “X-Factor” and if so, anything is possible.

For Part Fourteen in in this Series, click here

Notable News: "Read All About It"

     Caine Moss (VentureBeat): "Seed is the New Series A For VC's"

3)    Aaron Hoos (Venture Hype): "Not a One Trick Pony Angel Investor"

4)    Fred Wilson: "The Biggest Loser Can Be the Biggest Winner”

5)    Camille Ricketts (VentureBeat): "Green Energy Sector Sees Record Patents"

University Spinoffs: A Stunning Track-Record of Success

 

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Recently I met an entrepreneur at a function who, upon learning that I ran the Venture Lab at Columbia University asked me why he should pay any attention to the university space at all- telling me that he had never heard of any successful university spinoff companies. I responded by saying that I wasn’t surprised and that this view is actually a common misconception. I went on to point out that companies with household names such as Google, Lycos, Genentech, Gatorade, Hewlett Packard, Polaroid and others were all formed around university intellectual property. He was definitely shocked to hear this and we subsequently had a pleasant discussion about the Bayh-Dole Act, the spinoff process, and essentially the whole fascinating landscape of university entrepreneurship. 

I have conversations like this so often that I thought I’d share a few statistics about university spinoffs to which I can refer entrepreneurs and investors in the future. 

• Over 400 university startups are created each year based on federally funded R&D.
• Google, Netscape, Genentech, Hewlett Packard, Polaroid, Lycos, Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, Chiron, Amgen, Regeneron and Cisco Systems are all examples of university startups.
• 68% of university startups created between 1980 to 2000 remained in business in 2001, while non-university based startups experienced a 90% failure rate during that same time period
• 1/3 of SBIRs reported involvement with a university including scenarios where either the founder was a former academic, university faculty were consultants, universities were subcontractors, or graduate students were employed
• 8 percent of all university startups go public, in comparison to a "going public rate" of only 0.07 percent for other U.S. enterprises - a 114x difference
• By way of example, as of FY 2009, Columbia University has spun-off over 100 companies historically, over twenty of which have either been acquired or gone public, over 30 of which have been venture-backed at some point in their life-cycle, leading to the creation of in excess of 1500 new jobs.

(Sources: NCET2 and Columbia Technology Ventures)

For Part Twelve in this Series, click here

Profiles in Entrepreneurial Courage: The Story of Bill Powell

This is part of my Series on Entrepreneurial Culture.

I was really inspired by an article I read in this weekend’s NY Times penned by Larry Dorman.  It’s about a gentleman by the name of Bill Powell, a veteran of WWII, a great-grandson of Alabama slaves, and a man who endured enormous indignities and discrimination but nonetheless persevered in achieving his entrepreneurial dream. His particular ambition was to design, build and run his own golf course.

Upon his return from the war no bank deigned to give him a loan and he was essentially denied the rights accorded to him in the G.I. Bill.  Unbowed, he managed to scrape together some seed money for his venture, borrowing from his own brother and from two black physicians. He then proceeded to handle the rest on his own and slowly and steadily built a golf course from scratch. He finished with the front nine in 1948. After earning the means to buy some more land, he completed the back nine thirty years later- in 1978.

Today his Clearview Golf Club of East Canton, Ohio is on the National Register of Historic Places and Mr. Powell, who is now 92 years old, will shortly be receiving the PGA’s Distinguished Service Award.

I write quite a lot about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture and you can find my various posts on this subject here. These two passages below, however, said it all to me and embody somehow what being an entrepreneur is all about:

“He did much of the heavy work himself, clearing brush, pulling out fence posts and hauling away stones in a wheelbarrow. He seeded the fairways by hand, sometimes helped by Marcella, who died in June 1996 after 56 years of marriage.”

“He and my mother planted most of the trees you see there bordering the first hole,” she [his daughter] said. “When you think about what he was able to accomplish here, with everything that was arrayed against him, it really is quite amazing.”

For Part 6 of this Series, click here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• After Battling Racism, Veteran Found Peace on His Golf Course (nytimes.com)

Notable Posts: "Read All About It"

 

London VC, "Does Operational Experience Help a VC?"

In VC deals, Price Doesn't Matter - But The "Promote" Does

WSJ on Andreesen

Don’t Raise Money: China StartupBlog

University Spinoffs: Bridging the Cultural Divide

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 A big factor in having success spinning-out university startups is the ability to bridge the cultural gap between academia and the investment community.  I think about this divide a great deal, both as a long-time investor in this space and perhaps even moreso now that I am the director of a prominent university venture lab which spins out 10-12 new companies a year.

I was therefore delighted to recently come across this short post written by Amit Monga, Professor of Finance at the University of Alberta. He shares some excellent insights into the practice of investing in university startups courtesy of his prior experience as a venture capitalist.  Dr. Monga’s central premise is that investors want to see much more than technology when they speak with a university tech transfer office.  They are, after all, in the business of launching new companies, which require quite a bit more to succeed than the initial invention or discovery.

What really caught my eye, however, is his very first point which addresses the cultural divide to which I refer above. He points out that whereas it’s very much the custom in academia to focus on a professor’s achievements in research, (including his or her credentials, awards, honors, the number of grad students in their lab, etc.), the reality is that investors first want to hear a value proposition articulated for a potential business. Monga asserts that investors must actually have the answer to this question within the first five minutes of a pitch.

Having politely sat through quite a number of such lengthy introductions that never quite arrive at describing the “pain in the market”, I must wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Monga. In fact, I would say that this value proposition should be expressed within the first two minutes of a pitch.  If the investor is interested, there will be plenty of time to learn more about the professor’s academic achievements. 

I’ll go a step further on the subject of the cultural divide and say that I’ve seen instances where an investor’s motives are viewed extremely dimly by the academic. This too can be a problem.  Again, in this instance, it’s incumbent on the tech transfer folks to invite only the most reputable people into the university and to help work through any ingrained biases that might exist on either side.  For an eventual start-up to be successful, both parties will have to get along extremely well and will come to rely on each other. Start-ups are the very opposite of “arms-length” transactions.

So whether you’re an angel investor, a VC, an entrepreneur, a grad student, a post-doc or a university professor, it’s always valuable to approach university spin-offs with a great deal of cultural sensitivity and understanding.  I assure you, this sort of awareness alone can make all the difference.

For Part Ten in this Series, click here

Launching Your Company: Send Lawyers, Guns and Money? Or Do It Yourself!

This is part of my Series on Entrepreneurial Culture.

The classic Warren Zevon refrain, “Send Lawyers, Guns and Money”, could very wellepitomize the attitude many first-time entrepreneurs take on when launching their companies.  In fact, I’m asked the question, “Which lawyer should I hire?” so often that I decided to share my quick thoughts on this matter.

In my opinion you actually do not need a lawyer. What you really need is a successful serial entrepreneur to be your mentor. She or he can help you not only with incorporation but with all the other issues you’ll be facing as you launch the new company.

In a nutshell- hold your fire and save your money.

Nowadays it’s a breeze to incorporate online and there are services such as Legal Zoom and others that remove any need whatsoever for engaging counsel.  Furthermore, standard Operating Agreements are widely available and figuring out whether to start an LLC, an S Corp or a C Corp or what state is best suited for your newco basically involves a two minute conversation with your mentor.  To pay a lawyer a handsome retainer and hourly fees to help you with any of these issues is a complete waste of money in my opinion.

If you don’t have an experienced mentor to help you and absolutely insist on hiring a lawyer, please remember that these services are a commodity. You should only work with reputable, respected lawyers that primarily work with start-up companies and who are well-regarded in your local entrepreneurial and investment community. If you go elsewhere you will most likely be shelling out thousands of dollars for the usual rigmarole. Reputable counsel will help you set things up inexpensively and will be a resource that is available to you as you grow your company.  Their value will manifest itself once you actually have a revenue-generating business and are perhaps raising your first round of institutional funding. 

I of course welcome you to share your thoughts and experiences on this topic.

Deal Terms for University Spin-Offs

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Everyone asks about deal terms at some point, so we may as well address it sooner than later. Let’s say you’ve now visited a few tech transfer offices and you are ready to talk to their New Ventures person about spinning out some IP into a start-up.  What kind of deal terms should you be looking for?

The reality is that every deal is different and so it’s difficult to generate a one-size-fits-all response. Also be mindful that university tech transfer offices across the country vary greatly in their approach to start-ups.

Here are some very general guidelines to a fair deal that you may find helpful, however:

• In most cases you should obtain an exclusive license to the technology in the fields in which you intend to operate

• In most cases you should seek to back-end the economics of the deal and stay away from high up-front license fees

• You should be prepared to partner with the university and let it have an equity stake in the company. (We will have a separate series of posts on equity considerations as there are many nuances here).

• You should mutually agree to some diligence milestones that lay-out time-lines for things like first product sale and in some cases capital-raised or revenue targets. These should have built-in flexibility and not be harsh

• Royalties depend a great deal on the industry in which you’ll be operating but should never be a yoke around your neck- allowing you to operate with a comfortable margin

If you’re not getting a deal done that reflects a win-win you should quickly move on, but such negative outcomes are less and less frequent. More and more offices understand the challenges of launching a start-up and, when a talented entrepreneur is at the table, increasingly have the right approach.

For Part Nine in this Series, click here

Should There be Profit in Knowledge? A Century of American Debate

 

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

I recently hosted a talk by Geoff Smith of Ascent Biomedical Ventures entitled: Should There be Profit in Knowledge? Geoff is a fellow Williams College alum and recovering attorney who, like me, got ensconced in the world of launching companies and venture investing in the mid-nineties.  He’s a Managing Partner at Ascent which is one of the few truly seed-stage venture funds in New York operating in the biomedical tech space. He also happens to be a Scholar at Rockefeller University where he founded and teaches the University’s Science & Economics Program. (See here for his bio: http://bit.ly/gbnAC)

One thing I learned about Geoff during his talk is that he’s really a very deep thinker about public policy as it relates to university tech transfer. His lecture covered the evolution of the intense American debate in this field over the last century, from the time of the World Wars up through the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, taking us right to the present day. His analysis wove in the scientific norms of Sociologist Robert K. Merton,  the effect of the Ransdell Act of 1930, and the pioneering work of Vannevar Bush (one of the gentlemen pictured above), who drove so much of the ground-breaking government policy in this field. Lastly, I'll say that Geoff’s conclusions were not what one might have expected from a venture capitalist. He has a real reverence for the singular importance of basic research to our society.

I left the talk and ensuing discussion with both a deepened historical perspective and greater appreciation for the transformative effect on our society that a century of American policy evolution in university tech transfer has wrought.  I also emerged perhaps with a keener understanding of its boundaries.  Fascinating stuff and many thanks to Geoff.

For Part Eight in this Series, click here

University Spin-Offs (6): Amazing Historical IPO Rate

This is part of my Series on University Entrepreneurship.

 Soon after getting involved with university spin-offs I came across Scott Shane’s book, Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation.  Scott is a Professor of Entrepreneurship at Case Western  Reserve in Cleveland, OH.  You can find his impressive credentials and scholarship here. He is also one of the few scholars that has closely studied the world of university spin-offs.

One of the outputs of his research was a staggering statistic that has been quoted widely. He found that university spin-offs were 108 times as likely to go public as a company with no ties to a university.

The National Council for Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer has put forth a similarly impressive statistic, indicating that 8% of university spin-offs have actually gone public.

I believe that this disparity has a great deal to do with the fact that the crème-de-la-crème of university start-ups are no doubt the end result of years of research, know-how, incubation, testing, federal funding, development and patenting within the university prior to being spun-out. When such a package is licensed to a talented entrepreneurial team, we have a formidable recipe for success.

For Part Seven in this Series, click here

Raising Capital (2): Five Myths About Raising Capital

This is part of my Series on Venture Capital.

Let’s start by dispelling some myths about raising capital.

Myth #1: That because you've started a company, someone ought to fund it.

Fact: Actually, no one owes you anything. VC’s are in business to make money, not to take a bunch of fliers.

I am consistently amazed at how often I hear people complaining about how “vc’s don’t want to take any risks”.  Of course they don’t ! They want to de-risk deals as much as possible. Venture capitalists are already in the highest risk class of the alternative investments category.  Definitely keep this in mind when you are pitching your company to investors. Remember, fewer than 1% of start-ups actually receive venture funding.

Myth #2: That a first-time entrepreneur can raise Venture Capital money.

Fact:  Of the less than 1% of start-ups that actually receive venture backing each year, you can be assured that with few exceptions the leadership/track records of those companies are well-spoken for in the venture community.

If you are a first-time entrepreneur, 99.9% of the time you will be looking at funding your company with your own money, friends and family money, or, with angel money.

Myth #3: That investors will actually read your business plan

Fact: Investors do not read business plans. If they did, they wouldn’t be able to get any work done.

The way deals get done are through referrals to investors from trusted colleagues. A one-page executive summary is an acceptable way to initially share one’s company profile with an investor.  So never bother sending your 50+ page business plan  to someone unless they’ve asked for it. If you don’t believe me, see these links below from actual studies that have been carried out.

http://bit.ly/O4kO4   http://bit.ly/Cj92J

Myth #4: That a first-timer can raise money without serious proof-of-concept.

Fact: Unless you are Marc Andreesen or an uber-successful, cashed-out entrepreneur who has made his investors a lot of money, you will need to demonstrate a certain amount of traction before professional investors will even consider investing in you.

What I mean by this is as follows:

·        If you are a biotech entrepreneur, you will need to show at least strong results in animal studies.

·        If you are a medical device entrepreneur, you will need to show a working prototype, validation and support from multiple clinicians who would use such a product, as well as a clear path through FDA approval.

·        If you are a tech entrepreneur, you will need to show heavy traffic and consistent month on month growth to your site.

Myth #5: That because you have spoken to a venture capitalist about your company you are “in talks with investors”.

Fact: What this simply means is that you met someone that may or may not be interested in your start-up.

Spare yourself a lot of heart-ache and lower your expectations. If you’ve had a conversation or pitched someone who happens to be an investor, don’t get your hopes up until they are actually ‘in diligence’ and you have a term sheet.