The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) annual meeting kicks off today with a great mix of sessions and speakers. At a policy level, NVCA Chairman Dixon Doll is also announcing a four pillar plan to help increase liquidity via IPOs.

Pillar I - Ecosystem Partners: consolidation and attrition has limited the number of mid-tier accounting/legal/i-banking firms who can help smaller companies reach the public markets — at least at a manageable cost. The NVCA is encouraging a new set of ecosystem participants and partnering with the largest players in the industry to do the job better.

Pillar II - Enhanced Liquidity Paths: The NVCA is endorsing alternative distribution between buyers and sellers that grows buyers and their commitment to holding long-term. One example provided was Inside Venture, which pre-screens cross-over investors who agree to hold long-term.

Pillar III - Tax Incentives: From globally competitive capital gains rates, to carried interest taxation, to one-time IPO-related tax incentives; the NVCA advocates a suite of tax initiatives that will encourage investment and company growth.

Pillar IV - Regulatory Review: Sarbanes-Oxley and a host of other regulatory moves have created various unintended negative consequences and costs for smaller venture-backed companies. The NVCA advocates a tiered approach to regulation to recognize the different circumstance of large and small public entities.

The full NVCA presentation can be viewed below. It contains a good set of data behind these recommendations, including the impact venture-backed companies have on our economy (12.1M jobs created).

NVCA 4-Pillar Plan to Restore Liquidity in the U.S. Venture Capital Industry

Founders of start-ups and the venture capitalists who finance them have two ways to get their money out of the company: sell it to another company or sell shares to the public.

The market for initial public offerings has dried up and companies are not being very acquisitive these days. In the first three months of 2009, only 56 companies were sold, half the number of a year ago, and none went public.

What if they had another option? SecondMarket, which operates markets for trading illiquid assets online, is creating a marketplace for trading shares of private companies, The New York Times’s Claire Cain Miller reports. It puts investors together with shareholders and collects a fee, which will be 2 percent from each side for the private company market.

Typically, venture-backed start-ups are sold or go public within five to seven years, but lately it is taking longer. As the exits are delayed, venture capitalists who are unable to cash out cannot return money to their investors or devote time and money to new companies. Some employees inside the start-ups, being paid low salaries, get impatient for a payday.

(Read More)

Questions to ask before you sign on the dotted line.

By Sharon Kahn, CNNMoney

It may seem as if the money folks are in charge when startups are looking for capital, but both entrepreneurs and investors stress the importance of determining if the fit will work. Here are three simple questions to ask before taking a venture capitalist’s money:

Can we all get along?

Dr. Huyoung Huh is CEO of BiPar Sciences, a Brisbane, Calif.-based biotech startup that’s developing treatments for especially tricky forms of cancer. Huh ran a secret test on potential investors: “I imagined sitting next to the person on a five-hour flight from San Francisco to New York City,” he says. “Would I value him as an adviser, a colleague? Would I like him as an individual? If we can’t spend time together, it would be very difficult to work with him on my board.”

How’s your Rolodex?

The best VCs will help you recruit staffers and new investors and make other key connections. For example, Palo Alto-based Allegis Capital counts electronics retailer Best Buy (BBY, Fortune 500) among its limited partners. An introduction from managing director Spencer Tall allowed IMVU to place gift cards in Best Buy stores for its chat-room, where people interact through avatars they create. What’s more, Best Buy Capital, the retailer’s in-house venture fund, invested in IMVU’s $10 million D Round in January.

Have you run a company before?

“We don’t want to micromanage, but many VCs are former entrepreneurs who can understand what entrepreneurs are going through,” says James A. Datin, managing director at Safeguard Scientifics in Wayne, Pa. And even if a venture capitalist passes on your pitch, make sure you don’t leave the room without hitting her up for some free advice about your business plan.

There’s no mistaking it. The richest era of internet boom, the early part of what has been called the “greatest creation of legal wealth in the history of mankind,” has played itself out.

Today’s data, which shows that investment into U.S. venture capital firms dropped 40 percent in the first quarter, compared to a year ago, is just the latest sign.

Silicon Valley, and its great technology prowess, is now settling into a era of continued innovation, albeit with financial rewards much more modest than most of us have come to expect. At least, unless some unforeseen amazing technology trend emerges that we can’t possibly imagine right now.

The valley’s decline is only news to those who were still holding out hope — the large number of valley folks still desperately dreaming of hitting the Internet jackpot. After the big Internet bubble burst in 2000, Google emerged from the ashes, and in 2004 unleashed one of the biggest most successful IPOs in history. With hundreds of new millionaires freshly minted, these believers thought Silicon Valley was off to the races again. The hope held out through late last year — in part because Web 2.0 was a giant head-fake. YouTube entranced us with a $1.6 billion exit, and Facebook continued the seduction with a purported $15 billion valuation from Microsoft. But the financial performances of these and other Web 2.0 companies have vastly undershot initial expectations. The revival is just not coming.

Let’s look closely at the evidence. The number public companies here in Silicon Valley — ground zero for the U.S. technology juggernaut — has dropped significantly over the last decade. In fact, it has fallen for eight straight years, and stands at 261. That’s below the 315 the valley had in 1994, when the local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, itself a tiny semblance of its former heft, started keeping track. The overall public valuation of these companies is also atrophying. If you look at the top 150 companies in Silicon Valley, their value has dropped 32 percent for the year ending March 31, the Mercury News also reported over the weekend. And few companies have emerged to go public to change this: Only 90 IPOs happened in the valley between 2001 and 2008, compared to 331 between 1990 and 1998.

Now venture capital firms are shutting up shop too (see our very long list of walking dead VC firms, just recently published), now that investors realize the goldrush era of technology prospecting is over. The latest evidence was in this morning’s data from the National Venture Capital Association and Thomson Reuters: Investors placed $4.3 billion into just 40 venture capital funds in the first quarter, down from $7.1 billion in 71 funds in the same quarter a year ago. It’s the fewest number of funds backed since 2003. (Though the year-over-year drop is smaller than the one seen during the last three months of 2008.)

True, the financial meltdown has played a role in the decline in funding and local company fortunes. But if you step back, you’ll see there really is no massive, fundamental value creation going any more like there was in computer and Internet revolutions of the 1980s and 1990s. When the valley’s best known venture capitalist John Doerr (pictured here) proclaimed during the late 1990s that the Internet was creating the greatest legal wealth in history, it was true. His firm, Kleiner Perkins, was behind scores of investments into companies that built out the Internet backbone as we know it. From server company Sun, to networking companies Siara and Cerent, to router companies like Juniper Networks, and then search giant Google — each of these companies produced billions in wealth. Kleiner made billions of dollars in profit from them. Other firms like Sequoia made billions from similar investments, such as Cisco, the big router company and in early computer companies like Apple. Entrepreneurs and employees everywhere benefited too. Everyone was winning. That’s no longer the case.

As the Internet build-out has diffused through the rest of the economy, the massive amounts of money is no longer there to be made, and we’re seeing a different kind of valley emerge. The technologist fervor here in the valley remains as strong as ever. We see entrepreneur’s starting new companies all the time, but they’re just not creating as much value as quickly as they once did. The bonanza days are over, and its back to eking out an honest living, smaller, cheaper bets with more modest results. We’re seeing consolidation too: Database software giant Oracle years ago saw it growth slowing significantly, but it has achieved revenue through consolidation. We’re witnessing the same in other sectors, and we’re probably see the same in digital media over the course of this year (more on that in another post). Meantime, the innovations that do happen are creating more efficiencies, sometimes sucking out value from elsewhere. The hit from 2007 was VMWare, when it led a wave of “virtualization” technology, making servers more efficient in corporate data center. That means incumbent servers are too costly, and companies like Sun are struggling. And over 2008 and this year, the innovation is on the mobile phone and in the emergence of cheaper, smaller computing devices known as netbooks.

But in both cases, the new players (Apple with the iPhone and the string of Asian netbook manufactuers) are upending existing players by driving costs down (Dell and HP, for example, which depend on existing computer sales). While Apple creates wealth for itself, which is good, the other winners are the hundreds of developers building applications for it. But their riches are distributed globally, and in much smaller amounts.

And now the number VC firms are shriveling. We’re returning to a boostrapped model, and to hope that something dynamic will take the place of that good old Internet boom. The VC industry believes the next new thing is clean technology. That may be the case. There’s a trillion dollar energy market that is ripe for disruption. You’re seeing government policies helping encourage investment in alternative energy. Solar companies, new electric car companies, and wind and other efficiency-related companies are proliferating. But for now, the sort of localized massive wealth creation we saw in the 1990s just isn’t coming back, and we’ll just have to get over it.

Google Inc is forming a $100 million fund to invest in early-stage start-up firms.

The fund, to be called Google Ventures, will be wholly owned by Google, but will operate as a separate entity and will seek investment opportunities to maximize returns rather than looking for investments that strictly fit with Google’s strategic vision.

Rich Miner, a co-founder of Android smart phone software that Google acquired in 2005, and Bill Maris are the fund’s two managing partners.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Miner appeared at an investor conference for Internet start-up companies with a name tag that listed his name alongside Google Ventures.

Miner said on Monday that Google Ventures will look at a wide variety of companies to invest in, including consumer Internet products, information technology, health care and biotech, among other areas.

“Just as we were founded by entrepreneurs, we think we can help some of those next entrepreneurs with the next great idea,” said Miner.

Google Ventures has already invested in Pixazza Inc, an photo-based online marketing service and Silver Spring Networks, a company that uses technology to improve the efficiency of power grids.

Google has invested in other companies in the past through its philanthropic division, Google.org. While Google.org may continue to make investments from time to time, Maris said that Google Ventures will now function as Google’s “primary vehicle” for making venture-style investments.

Several high-tech companies have in-house venture capital arms, including Intel and Motorola, But Maris said that Google Ventures will have more in common with traditional venture capital firms.

“We’re making financial return our first lens,” said Maris. But he noted that a part of the appeal of Google Ventures for start-up firms is the relationship to Google and its 20,000 employees.

The fund will focus primarily on companies seeking seed funding and early stage funding, and Google Ventures will have the ability to make investments ranging from tens of thousands to “several tens of millions” of dollars, Maris said.

From Web Strategy by Jeremiah

Surprisingly, some of the most important resources from a VC isn’t the financial funding.

When I meet with startups I find it helpful to find out who their investor is, secondly, it’s important to watch how VCs are funding, as it impacts what type of technologies we’ll see in the next few months. I don’t know as much as I want to about the VC world, so when I have questions I turn to Jennifer Jones, just this weekend we were engaged in the topic of the overall value that VCs bring. No, not just the money aspect, but the other intangible benefits, as VCs provide several intangible services to their portfolio companies, as I understand it, they include:

VCs Provide Startups With A Competitive Edge by Offering Additional Services:

(Read More)

At South by Southwest Interactive today, panelists from the Bay Area; Madison, Wisc.; Beijing; and Austin, Texas, debated the value of building your startup in the Valley, and the corrupting influence of venture capital on technology startups. The panel came to the conclusion that, if you want to build big and build fast, then you need to go to the Valley. However, few companies need to build big and fast.

The panel didn’t break any new ground with its discussion on the Bay Area’s proximity to capital, abundant talent and reverence of startup culture. However, cracks are beginning to show, as startups need less venture capital, California’s economy worsens and as the reverence of a startup culture that celebrates the go-big-or-go-home way of creating a startup fades.

The Bay Area startup ethos that calls for millions in venture funding and a giant business built in three to five years may be on the wane as the venture world faces its own tectonic shifts (see video below). “The model of tech getting used to VCs throwing crazy amounts of money at them is just crazy,” says Mike Maples, Sr., an angel investor who formerly worked at Microsoft and has funded several businesses.

Panelist Penelope Trunk, founder of the Brazen Careerist, who started her company in Madison, Wisc., called the VC model shallow and limiting for an entrepreneur. She pointed out that the traditional startup culture embraced by Silicon Valley comes at a personal cost that makes it hard for women and those with families to become entrepreneurs, and she championed building a business that generates sales and grows organically.

Panelist Kaiser Kuo, a business consultant in China, echoed the call to bootstrap, saying, “VCs should be the funding source of last resort.”

I walked away thinking the big debate for entrepreneurs is less about where you start a company, than an effort to reclaim the word “startup” for entrepreneurs who bootstrap their technology business — in or outside of the Valley. Many of these companies get less PR (they can’t always afford it), but they will likely become increasingly relevant as the downturn forces a realignment of the venture industry and forces entrepreneurs to build a startup that can make it as a business from day one.

For only the third time in history, the return on investment of venture capital firms performed better than buyout firms, according to a study by Cambridge Associates LLC. However, both lost money, of course:

  • Venture Capital: -2.8%
  • Buyout firms: -8%.

The Wall Street Journal’s Private Equity Beat blog notes that this is only the third time since 2005 that buyout quarterly returns trailed venture capital — Cambridge Associates has tracked both PE and VC returns since 1986. PE Beat’s Laura Kreutzer wrote of the news:

“It was the first time since the third quarter of 2007 and only the second time since 2005 began that buyout firms’ quarterly returns have trailed those of their venture counterparts, as the buyout industry began to feel the impact of a weakening economy, declining public markets and mark to market accounting rules required by Financial Accounting Standards Board Rule 157.”

However, before VC firms crow too much about Cambridge’s study, Kreutzer also notes:

“Buyout professionals are quick to point out that quarterly returns don’t carry much meaning given that theirs are long-term investments. The longer-term Cambridge Associates data shows that private equity has generated 13.3%, 19% and 11.8% returns over the past three years, five years and 10 years, respectively.”

Still for VCs, who have watched a growing number of startups join the deadpool in this economy, any silver lining is worth celebrating.

Startup valuations are falling and venture capitalists are driving harder bargains, according to a survey by California law firm Fenwick & West

Like the rest of the economy, the world of venture capital and startups is starting to feel more pain from the deepening global financial crisis.

That’s the main takeaway from a new survey detailing trends in venture capital investments during the fourth quarter of 2008 by the California law firm Fenwick & West.

The survey, which analyzed the terms of venture deals for 128 companies headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, found that valuations are falling for startups and that venture capitalists are driving harder bargains. The silver lining: The fallout so far is not nearly as bad as it was during the dot-com bust, when hundreds of companies went under and stratospheric valuations came crashing down to earth.

(Read More)