How Venture Capital Works

Invention and innovation drive the U.S. economy. What’s more, they have a powerful grip on the nation’s collective imagination. The popular press is filled with against-all-odds success stories of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. In these sagas, the entrepreneur is the modern-day cowboy, roaming new industrial frontiers much the same way that earlier Americans explored the West. At his side stands the venture capitalist, a trail-wise sidekick ready to help the hero through all the tight spots—in exchange, of course, for a piece of the action.

As with most myths, there’s some truth to this story. Arthur Rock, Tommy Davis, Tom Perkins, Eugene Kleiner, and other early venture capitalists are legendary for the parts they played in creating the modern computer industry. Their investing knowledge and operating experience were as valuable as their capital. But as the venture capital business has evolved over the past 30 years, the image of a cowboy with his sidekick has become increasingly outdated. Today’s venture capitalists look more like bankers, and the entrepreneurs they fund look more like M.B.A.’s.

The U.S. venture-capital industry is envied throughout the world as an engine of economic growth. Although the collective imagination romanticizes the industry, separating the popular myths from the current realities is crucial to understanding how this important piece of the U.S. economy operates. For entrepreneurs (and would-be entrepreneurs), such an analysis may prove especially beneficial.

Venture Capital Fills a Void

Contrary to popular perception, venture capital plays only a minor role in funding basic innovation. Venture capitalists invested more than $10 billion in 1997, but only 6%, or $600 million, went to startups. Moreover, we estimate that less than $1 billion of the total venture-capital pool went to R&D. The majority of that capital went to follow-on funding for projects originally developed through the far greater expenditures of governments ($63 billion) and corporations ($133 billion).

Profile of the Ideal Entrepreneur From a venture capitalist’s perspective, the ideal entrepreneur: is qualified in a “hot” area of interest,

delivers sales or technical advances such as FDA approval with reasonable probability,

tells a compelling story and is presentable to outside investors,

recognizes the need for speed to an IPO for liquidity,

has a good reputation and can provide references that show competence and skill,

understands the need for a team with a variety of skills and therefore sees why equity has to be allocated to other people,

works diligently toward a goal but maintains flexibility,

gets along with the investor group,

understands the cost of capital and typical deal structures and is not offended by them,

is sought after by many VCs, and

has realistic expectations about process and outcome.

Where venture money plays an important role is in the next stage of the innovation life cycle—the period in a company’s life when it begins to commercialize its innovation. We estimate that more than 80% of the money invested by venture capitalists goes into building the infrastructure required to grow the business—in expense investments (manufacturing, marketing, and sales) and the balance sheet (providing fixed assets and working capital).

Venture money is not long-term money. The idea is to invest in a company’s balance sheet and infrastructure until it reaches a sufficient size and credibility so that it can be sold to a corporation or so that the institutional public-equity markets can step in and provide liquidity. In essence, the venture capitalist buys a stake in an entrepreneur’s idea, nurtures it for a short period of time, and then exits with the help of an investment banker.

Read more about Women-Led Startups Received Just 2.3% of VC Funding in 2020

Venture capital’s niche exists because of the structure and rules of capital markets. Someone with an idea or a new technology often has no other institution to turn to. Usury laws limit the interest banks can charge on loans—and the risks inherent in start-ups usually justify higher rates than allowed by law. Thus bankers will only finance a new business to the extent that there are hard assets against which to secure the debt. And in today’s information-based economy, many start-ups have few hard assets.

Furthermore, investment banks and public equity are both constrained by regulations and operating practices meant to protect the public investor. Historically, a company could not access the public market without sales of about $15 million, assets of $10 million, and a reasonable profit history. To put this in perspective, less than 2% of the more than 5 million corporations in the United States have more than $10 million in revenues. Although the IPO threshold has been lowered recently through the issuance of development-stage company stocks, in general the financing window for companies with less than $10 million in revenue remains closed to the entrepreneur.

Subscribe to our Monthly Newsletter Finance & Economy Our latest thinking and analysis on the global economy. Sign Up Thanks for subscribing, ! You can view our other newsletters or opt out at any time by managing your email preferences

Venture capital fills the void between sources of funds for innovation (chiefly corporations, government bodies, and the entrepreneur’s friends and family) and traditional, lower-cost sources of capital available to ongoing concerns. Filling that void successfully requires the venture capital industry to provide a sufficient return on capital to attract private equity funds, attractive returns for its own participants, and sufficient upside potential to entrepreneurs to attract high-quality ideas that will generate high returns. Put simply, the challenge is to earn a consistently superior return on investments in inherently risky business ventures.

Sufficient Returns at Acceptable Risk

Investors in venture capital funds are typically very large institutions such as pension funds, financial firms, insurance companies, and university endowments—all of which put a small percentage of their total funds into high-risk investments. They expect a return of between 25% and 35% per year over the lifetime of the investment. Because these investments represent such a tiny part of the institutional investors’ portfolios, venture capitalists have a lot of latitude. What leads these institutions to invest in a fund is not the specific investments but the firm’s overall track record, the fund’s “story,” and their confidence in the partners themselves.

How do venture capitalists meet their investors’ expectations at acceptable risk levels? The answer lies in their investment profile and in how they structure each deal.

The Investment Profile.

One myth is that venture capitalists invest in good people and good ideas. The reality is that they invest in good industries—that is, industries that are more competitively forgiving than the market as a whole. In 1980, for example, nearly 20% of venture capital investments went to the energy industry. More recently, the flow of capital has shifted rapidly from genetic engineering, specialty retailing, and computer hardware to CD-ROMs, multimedia, telecommunications, and software companies. Now, more than 25% of disbursements are devoted to the Internet “space.” The apparent randomness of these shifts among technologies and industry segments is misleading; the targeted segment in each case was growing fast, and its capacity promised to be constrained in the next five years. To put this in context, we estimate that less than 10% of all U.S. economic activity occurs in segments projected to grow more than 15% a year over the next five years.

The myth is that venture capitalists invest in good people and good ideas. The reality is that they invest in good industries.

In effect, venture capitalists focus on the middle part of the classic industry S-curve. They avoid both the early stages, when technologies are uncertain and market needs are unknown, and the later stages, when competitive shakeouts and consolidations are inevitable and growth rates slow dramatically. Consider the disk drive industry. In 1983, more than 40 venture-funded companies and more than 80 others existed. By late 1984, the industry market value had plunged from $5.4 billion to $1.4 billion. Today only five major players remain.

Growing within high-growth segments is a lot easier than doing so in low-, no-, or negative-growth ones, as every businessperson knows. In other words, regardless of the talent or charisma of individual entrepreneurs, they rarely receive backing from a VC if their businesses are in low-growth market segments. What these investment flows reflect, then, is a consistent pattern of capital allocation into industries where most companies are likely to look good in the near term.

During this adolescent period of high and accelerating growth, it can be extremely hard to distinguish the eventual winners from the losers because their financial performance and growth rates look strikingly similar. (See the chart “Timing Is Everything.”) At this stage, all companies are struggling to deliver products to a product-starved market. Thus the critical challenge for the venture capitalist is to identify competent management that can execute—that is, supply the growing demand.

Picking the wrong industry or betting on a technology risk in an unproven market segment is something VCs avoid. Exceptions to this rule tend to involve “concept” stocks, those that hold great promise but that take an extremely long time to succeed. Genetic engineering companies illustrate this point. In that industry, the venture capitalist’s challenge is to identify entrepreneurs who can advance a key technology to a certain stage—FDA approval, for example—at which point the company can be taken public or sold to a major corporation.

By investing in areas with high growth rates, VCs primarily consign their risks to the ability of the company’s management to execute. VC investments in high-growth segments are likely to have exit opportunities because investment bankers are continually looking for new high-growth issues to bring to market. The issues will be easier to sell and likely to support high relative valuations—and therefore high commissions for the investment bankers. Given the risk of these types of deals, investment bankers’ commissions are typically 6% to 8% of the money raised through an IPO. Thus an effort of only several months on the part of a few professionals and brokers can result in millions of dollars in commissions.

As long as venture capitalists are able to exit the company and industry before it tops out, they can reap extraordinary returns at relatively low risk. Astute venture capitalists operate in a secure niche where traditional, low-cost financing is unavailable. High rewards can be paid to successful management teams, and institutional investment will be available to provide liquidity in a relatively short period of time.

The Logic of the Deal.

There are many variants of the basic deal structure, but whatever the specifics, the logic of the deal is always the same: to give investors in the venture capital fund both ample downside protection and a favorable position for additional investment if the company proves to be a winner.

In a typical start-up deal, for example, the venture capital fund will invest $3 million in exchange for a 40% preferred-equity ownership position, although recent valuations have been much higher. The preferred provisions offer downside protection. For instance, the venture capitalists receive a liquidation preference. A liquidation feature simulates debt by giving 100% preference over common shares held by management until the VC’s $3 million is returned. In other words, should the venture fail, they are given first claim to all the company’s assets and technology. In addition, the deal often includes blocking rights or disproportional voting rights over key decisions, including the sale of the company or the timing of an IPO.

The contract is also likely to contain downside protection in the form of antidilution clauses, or ratchets. Such clauses protect against equity dilution if subsequent rounds of financing at lower values take place. Should the company stumble and have to raise more money at a lower valuation, the venture firm will be given enough shares to maintain its original equity position—that is, the total percentage of equity owned. That preferential treatment typically comes at the expense of the common shareholders, or management, as well as investors who are not affiliated with the VC firm and who do not continue to invest on a pro rata basis.

Alternatively, if a company is doing well, investors enjoy upside provisions, sometimes giving them the right to put additional money into the venture at a predetermined price. That means venture investors can increase their stakes in successful ventures at below market prices.

VC firms also protect themselves from risk by coinvesting with other firms. Typically, there will be a “lead” investor and several “followers.” It is the exception, not the rule, for one VC to finance an individual company entirely. Rather, venture firms prefer to have two or three groups involved in most stages of financing. Such relationships provide further portfolio diversification—that is, the ability to invest in more deals per dollar of invested capital. They also decrease the workload of the VC partners by getting others involved in assessing the risks during the due diligence period and in managing the deal. And the presence of several VC firms adds credibility. In fact, some observers have suggested that the truly smart fund will always be a follower of the top-tier firms.

Attractive Returns for the VC

In return for financing one to two years of a company’s start-up, venture capitalists expect a ten times return of capital over five years. Combined with the preferred position, this is very high-cost capital: a loan with a 58% annual compound interest rate that cannot be prepaid. But that rate is necessary to deliver average fund returns above 20%. Funds are structured to guarantee partners a comfortable income while they work to generate those returns. The venture capital partners agree to return all of the investors’ capital before sharing in the upside. However, the fund typically pays for the investors’ annual operating budget—2% to 3% of the pool’s total capital—which they take as a management fee regardless of the fund’s results. If there is a $100 million pool and four or five partners, for example, the partners are essentially assured salaries of $200,000 to $400,000 plus operating expenses for seven to ten years. (If the fund fails, of course, the group will be unable to raise funds in the future.) Compare those figures with Tommy Davis and Arthur Rock’s first fund, which was $5 million but had a total management fee of only $75,000 a year.

The real upside lies in the appreciation of the portfolio. The investors get 70% to 80% of the gains; the venture capitalists get the remaining 20% to 30%. The amount of money any partner receives beyond salary is a function of the total growth of the portfolio’s value and the amount of money managed per partner. (See the exhibit “Pay for Performance.”)

Thus for a typical portfolio—say, $20 million managed per partner and 30% total appreciation on the fund—the average annual compensation per partner will be about $2.4 million per year, nearly all of which comes from fund appreciation. And that compensation is multiplied for partners who manage several funds. From an investor’s perspective, this compensation is acceptable because the venture capitalists have provided a very attractive return on investment and their incentives are entirely aligned with making the investment a success.

What part does the venture capitalist play in maximizing the growth of the portfolio’s value? In an ideal world, all of the firm’s investments would be winners. But the world isn’t ideal; even with the best management, the odds of failure for any individual company are high.

On average, good plans, people, and businesses succeed only one in ten times. To see why, consider that there are many components critical to a company’s success. The best companies might have an 80% probability of succeeding at each of them. But even with these odds, the probability of eventual success will be less than 20% because failing to execute on any one component can torpedo the entire company.

If just one of the variables drops to a 50% probability, the combined chance of success falls to 10%.

These odds play out in venture capital portfolios: more than half the companies will at best return only the original investment and at worst be total losses. Given the portfolio approach and the deal structure VCs use, however, only 10% to 20% of the companies funded need to be real winners to achieve the targeted return rate of 25% to 30%. In fact, VC reputations are often built on one or two good investments.

A typical breakout of portfolio performance per $1,000 invested is shown below:

Those probabilities also have a great impact on how the venture capitalists spend their time. Little time is required (and sometimes best not spent) on the real winners—or the worst performers, called numnuts (“no money, no time”). Instead, the VC allocates a significant amount of time to those middle portfolio companies, determining whether and how the investment can be turned around and whether continued participation is advisable. The equity ownership and the deal structure described earlier give the VCs the flexibility to make management changes, particularly for those companies whose performance has been mediocre.

Most VCs distribute their time among many activities (see the exhibit “How Venture Capitalists Spend Their Time”). They must identify and attract new deals, monitor existing deals, allocate additional capital to the most successful deals, and assist with exit options. Astute VCs are able to allocate their time wisely among the various functions and deals.

Assuming that each partner has a typical portfolio of ten companies and a 2,000-hour work year, the amount of time spent on each company with each activity is relatively small. If the total time spent with portfolio companies serving as directors and acting as consultants is 40%, then partners spend 800 hours per year with portfolio companies. That allows only 80 hours per year per company—less than 2 hours per week.

The popular image of venture capitalists as sage advisors is at odds with the reality of their schedules. The financial incentive for partners in the VC firm is to manage as much money as possible. The more money they manage, the less time they have to nurture and advise entrepreneurs. In fact, “virtual CEOs” are now being added to the equity pool to counsel company management, which is the role that VCs used to play.

Today’s venture capital fund is structurally similar to its late 1970s and early 1980s predecessors: the partnership includes both limited and general partners, and the life of the fund is seven to ten years. (The fund makes investments over the course of the first two or three years, and any investment is active for up to five years. The fund harvests the returns over the last two to three years.) However, both the size of the typical fund and the amount of money managed per partner have changed dramatically. In 1980, the average fund was about $20 million, and its two or three general partners each managed three to five investments. That left a lot of time for the venture capital partners to work directly with the companies, bringing their experience and industry expertise to bear. Today the average fund is ten times larger, and each partner manages two to five times as many investments. Not surprisingly, then, the partners are usually far less knowledgeable about the industry and the technology than the entrepreneurs.

The Upside for Entrepreneurs

Even though the structure of venture capital deals seems to put entrepreneurs at a steep disadvantage, they continue to submit far more plans than actually get funded, typically by a ratio of more than ten to one. Why do seemingly bright and capable people seek such high-cost capital?

Venture-funded companies attract talented people by appealing to a “lottery” mentality. Despite the high risk of failure in new ventures, engineers and businesspeople leave their jobs because they are unable or unwilling to perceive how risky a start-up can be. Their situation may be compared to that of hopeful high school basketball players, devoting hours to their sport despite the overwhelming odds against turning professional and earning million-dollar incomes. But perhaps the entrepreneur’s behavior is not so irrational.

Consider the options. Entrepreneurs—and their friends and families—usually lack the funds to finance the opportunity. Many entrepreneurs also recognize the risks in starting their own businesses, so they shy away from using their own money. Some also recognize that they do not possess all the talent and skills required to grow and run a successful business.

Most of the entrepreneurs and management teams that start new companies come from corporations or, more recently, universities. This is logical because nearly all basic research money, and therefore invention, comes from corporate or government funding. But those institutions are better at helping people find new ideas than at turning them into new businesses (see the exhibit “Who Else Funds Innovation?”). Entrepreneurs recognize that their upside in companies or universities is limited by the institution’s pay structure. The VC has no such caps.

Who Else Funds Innovation? The venture model provides an engine for commercializing technologies that formerly lay dormant in corporations and in the halls of academia. Despite the $133 billion U.S. corporations spend on R&D, their basic structure makes entrepreneurship nearly impossible. Because R&D relies on a cooperative and collaborative environment, it is difficult, if not impossible, for companies to differentially reward employees working side by side, even if one has a brilliant idea and the other doesn’t. Compensation typically comes in the form of status and promotion, not money. It would be an organizational and compensation nightmare for companies to try to duplicate the venture capital strategy. Furthermore, companies typically invest in and protect their existing market positions; they tend to fund only those ideas that are central to their strategies. The result is a reservoir of talent and new ideas, which creates the pool for new ventures. For its part, the government provides two incentives to develop and commercialize new technology. The first is the patent and trademark system, which provides monopolies for inventive products in return for full disclosure of the technology. That, in turn, provides a base for future technology development. The second is the direct funding of speculative projects that corporations and individuals can’t or won’t fund. Such seed funding is expected to create jobs and boost the economy. Although many universities bemoan the fact that some professors are getting rich from their research, remember that most of the research is funded by the government. From the government’s perspective, that is exactly what their $63 billion in R&D funding is intended to do. The newest funding source for entrepreneurs are so-called angels, wealthy individuals who typically contribute seed capital, advice, and support for businesses in which they themselves are experienced. We estimate that they provide $20 billion to start-ups, a far greater amount than venture capitalists do. Turning to angels may be an excellent strategy, particularly for businesses in industries that are not currently in favor among the venture community. But for angels, these investments are a sideline, not a primary business.

Downsizing and reengineering have shattered the historical security of corporate employment. The corporation has shown employees its version of loyalty. Good employees today recognize the inherent insecurity of their positions and, in return, have little loyalty themselves.

Additionally, the United States is unique in its willingness to embrace risk-taking and entrepreneurship. Unlike many Far Eastern and European cultures, the culture of the United States attaches little, if any, stigma to trying and failing in a new enterprise. Leaving and returning to a corporation is often rewarded.

For all these reasons, venture capital is an attractive deal for entrepreneurs. Those who lack new ideas, funds, skills, or tolerance for risk to start something alone may be quite willing to be hired into a well-funded and supported venture. Corporate and academic training provides many of the technological and business skills necessary for the task while venture capital contributes both the financing and an economic reward structure well beyond what corporations or universities afford. Even if a founder is ultimately demoted as the company grows, he or she can still get rich because the value of the stock will far outweigh the value of any forgone salary.

By understanding how venture capital actually works, astute entrepreneurs can mitigate their risks and increase their potential rewards. Many entrepreneurs make the mistake of thinking that venture capitalists are looking for good ideas when, in fact, they are looking for good managers in particular industry segments. The value of any individual to a VC is thus a function of the following conditions:

the number of people within the high-growth industry that are qualified for the position;

the position itself (CEO, CFO, VP of R&D, technician);

the match of the person’s skills, reputation, and incentives to the VC firm;

the willingness to take risks; and

the ability to sell oneself.

Entrepreneurs who satisfy these conditions come to the table with a strong negotiating position. The ideal candidate will also have a business track record, preferably in a prior successful IPO, that makes the VC comfortable. His reputation will be such that the investment in him will be seen as a prudent risk. VCs want to invest in proven, successful people.

Just like VCs, entrepreneurs need to make their own assessments of the industry fundamentals, the skills and funding needed, and the probability of success over a reasonably short time frame. Many excellent entrepreneurs are frustrated by what they see as an unfair deal process and equity position. They don’t understand the basic economics of the venture business and the lack of financial alternatives available to them. The VCs are usually in the position of power by being the only source of capital and by having the ability to influence the network. But the lack of good managers who can deal with uncertainty, high growth, and high risk can provide leverage to the truly competent entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs who are sought after by competing VCs would be wise to ask the following questions:

Who will serve on our board and what is that person’s position in the VC firm?

How many other boards does the VC serve on?

Has the VC ever written and funded his or her own business plan successfully?

What, if any, is the VC’s direct operating or technical experience in this industry segment?

What is the firm’s reputation with entrepreneurs who have been fired or involved in unsuccessful ventures?

The VC partner with solid experience and proven skill is a true “trail-wise sidekick.” Most VCs, however, have never worked in the funded industry or have never been in a down cycle. And, unfortunately, many entrepreneurs are self-absorbed and believe that their own ideas or skills are the key to success. In fact, the VC’s financial and business skills play an important role in the company’s eventual success. Moreover, every company goes through a life cycle; each stage requires a different set of management skills. The person who starts the business is seldom the person who can grow it, and that person is seldom the one who can lead a much larger company. Thus it is unlikely that the founder will be the same person who takes the company public.

Ultimately, the entrepreneur needs to show the venture capitalist that his team and idea fit into the VC’s current focus and that his equity participation and management skills will make the VC’s job easier and the returns higher. When the entrepreneur understands the needs of the funding source and sets expectations properly, both the VC and entrepreneur can profit handsomely.

. . .

Although venture capital has grown dramatically over the past ten years, it still constitutes only a tiny part of the U.S. economy. Thus in principle, it could grow exponentially. More likely, however, the cyclical nature of the public markets, with their historic booms and busts, will check the industry’s growth. Companies are now going public with valuations in the hundreds of millions of dollars without ever making a penny. And if history is any guide, most of these companies never will.

The system described here works well for the players it serves: entrepreneurs, institutional investors, investment bankers, and the venture capitalists themselves. It also serves the supporting cast of lawyers, advisers, and accountants. Whether it meets the needs of the investing public is still an open question.

Venture capital

Form of private-equity financing

Venture capital (often abbreviated as VC) is a form of private equity financing that is provided by venture capital firms or funds to startups, early-stage, and emerging companies that have been deemed to have high growth potential or which have demonstrated high growth (in terms of number of employees, annual revenue, scale of operations, etc). Venture capital firms or funds invest in these early-stage companies in exchange for equity, or an ownership stake. Venture capitalists take on the risk of financing risky start-ups in the hopes that some of the firms they support will become successful. Because startups face high uncertainty,[1] VC investments have high rates of failure. The start-ups are usually based on an innovative technology or business model and they are usually from high technology industries, such as information technology (IT), clean technology or biotechnology.

The typical venture capital investment occurs after an initial "seed funding" round. The first round of institutional venture capital to fund growth is called the Series A round. Venture capitalists provide this financing in the interest of generating a return through an eventual "exit" event, such as the company selling shares to the public for the first time in an initial public offering (IPO), or disposal of shares happening via a merger, via a sale to another entity such as a financial buyer in the private equity secondary market or via a sale to a trading company such as a competitor.

In addition to angel investing, equity crowdfunding and other seed funding options, venture capital is attractive for new companies with limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering. In exchange for the high risk that venture capitalists assume by investing in smaller and early-stage companies, venture capitalists usually get significant control over company decisions, in addition to a significant portion of the companies' ownership (and consequently value). Start-ups like Uber, Airbnb, Flipkart, Xiaomi & Didi Chuxing are highly valued startups, commonly known as Unicorns where venture capitalists contribute more than financing to these early-stage firms; they also often provide strategic advice to the firm's executives on its business model and marketing strategies.

Venture capital is also a way in which the private and public sectors can construct an institution that systematically creates business networks for the new firms and industries so that they can progress and develop. This institution helps identify promising new firms and provide them with finance, technical expertise, mentoring, talent acquisition, strategic partnership, marketing "know-how", and business models. Once integrated into the business network, these firms are more likely to succeed, as they become "nodes" in the search networks for designing and building products in their domain.[2] However, venture capitalists' decisions are often biased, exhibiting for instance overconfidence and illusion of control, much like entrepreneurial decisions in general.[3]

History [ edit ]

Origins of modern venture capital [ edit ]

Before World War II (1939–1945) venture capital was primarily the domain of wealthy individuals and families. J.P. Morgan, the Wallenbergs, the Vanderbilts, the Whitneys, the Rockefellers, and the Warburgs were notable investors in private companies. In 1938, Laurance S. Rockefeller helped finance the creation of both Eastern Air Lines and Douglas Aircraft, and the Rockefeller family had vast holdings in a variety of companies. Eric M. Warburg founded E.M. Warburg & Co. in 1938, which would ultimately become Warburg Pincus, with investments in both leveraged buyouts and venture capital. The Wallenberg family started Investor AB in 1916 in Sweden and were early investors in several Swedish companies such as ABB, Atlas Copco, and Ericsson in the first half of the 20th century.

Only after 1945 did "true" venture capital investment firms begin to emerge, notably with the founding of American Research and Development Corporation (ARDC) and J.H. Whitney & Company in 1946.[4][5]

Georges Doriot, the "father of venture capitalism",[6] along with Ralph Flanders and Karl Compton (former president of MIT) founded ARDC in 1946 to encourage private-sector investment in businesses run by soldiers returning from World War II. ARDC became the first institutional private-equity investment firm to raise capital from sources other than wealthy families. Unlike most present-day venture capital firms, ARDC was a publicly-traded company. ARDC's most successful investment was its 1957 funding of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), which would later be valued at more than $355 million after its initial public offering in 1968. This represented a return of over 1200 times its investment and an annualized rate of return of 101% to ARDC.[7]

Former employees of ARDC went on to establish several prominent venture capital firms including Greylock Partners, founded in 1965 by Charlie Waite and Bill Elfers; Morgan, Holland Ventures, the predecessor of Flagship Ventures, founded in 1982 by James Morgan; Fidelity Ventures, now Volition Capital, founded in 1969 by Henry Hoagland; and Charles River Ventures, founded in 1970 by Richard Burnes.[8] ARDC continued investing until 1971, when Doriot retired. In 1972 Doriot merged ARDC with Textron after having invested in over 150 companies.[9]

John Hay Whitney (1904–1982) and his partner Benno Schmidt (1913–1999) founded J.H. Whitney & Company in 1946. Whitney had been investing since the 1930s, founding Pioneer Pictures in 1933 and acquiring a 15% interest in Technicolor Corporation with his cousin Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney. Florida Foods Corporation proved Whitney's most famous investment. The company developed an innovative method for delivering nutrition to American soldiers, later known as Minute Maid orange juice and was sold to The Coca-Cola Company in 1960. J.H. Whitney & Company continued to make investments in leveraged buyout transactions and raised $750 million for its sixth institutional private-equity fund in 2005.[citation needed]

Early venture capital and the growth of Silicon Valley [ edit ]

One of the first steps toward a professionally managed venture capital industry was the passage of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. The 1958 Act officially allowed the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to license private "Small Business Investment Companies" (SBICs) to help the financing and management of the small entrepreneurial businesses in the United States.[10] The Small Business Investment Act of 1958 provided tax breaks that helped contribute to the rise of private-equity firms.[11]

During the 1950s, putting a venture capital deal together may have required the help of two or three other organizations to complete the transaction. It was a business that was growing very rapidly, and as the business grew, the transactions grew exponentially.[12]

During the 1960s and 1970s, venture capital firms focused their investment activity primarily on starting and expanding companies. More often than not, these companies were exploiting breakthroughs in electronic, medical, or data-processing technology. As a result, venture capital came to be almost synonymous with technology finance. An early West Coast venture capital company was Draper and Johnson Investment Company, formed in 1962[13] by William Henry Draper III and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr. In 1965, Sutter Hill Ventures acquired the portfolio of Draper and Johnson as a founding action.[14] Bill Draper and Paul Wythes were the founders, and Pitch Johnson formed Asset Management Company at that time.

It was also in the 1960s that the common form of private-equity fund, still in use today, emerged. Private-equity firms organized limited partnerships to hold investments in which the investment professionals served as general partner and the investors, who were passive limited partners, put up the capital. The compensation structure, still in use today, also emerged with limited partners paying an annual management fee of 1.0–2.5% and a carried interest typically representing up to 20% of the profits of the partnership.

The growth of the venture capital industry was fueled by the emergence of the independent investment firms on Sand Hill Road, beginning with Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital in 1972. Located in Menlo Park, CA, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia and later venture capital firms would have access to the many semiconductor companies based in the Santa Clara Valley as well as early computer firms using their devices and programming and service companies.[note 1]

Throughout the 1970s, a group of private-equity firms, focused primarily on venture capital investments, would be founded that would become the model for later leveraged buyout and venture capital investment firms. In 1973, with the number of new venture capital firms increasing, leading venture capitalists formed the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). The NVCA was to serve as the industry trade group for the venture capital industry.[15] Venture capital firms suffered a temporary downturn in 1974, when the stock market crashed and investors were naturally wary of this new kind of investment fund.

It was not until 1978 that venture capital experienced its first major fundraising year, as the industry raised approximately $750 million. With the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in 1974, corporate pension funds were prohibited from holding certain risky investments including many investments in privately held companies. In 1978, the US Labor Department relaxed certain restrictions of the ERISA, under the "prudent man rule"[note 2], thus allowing corporate pension funds to invest in the asset class and providing a major source of capital available to venture capitalists.

1980s [ edit ]

The public successes of the venture capital industry in the 1970s and early 1980s (e.g., Digital Equipment Corporation, Apple Inc., Genentech) gave rise to a major proliferation of venture capital investment firms. From just a few dozen firms at the start of the decade, there were over 650 firms by the end of the 1980s, each searching for the next major "home run". The number of firms multiplied, and the capital managed by these firms increased from $3 billion to $31 billion over the course of the decade.[16]

The growth of the industry was hampered by sharply declining returns, and certain venture firms began posting losses for the first time. In addition to the increased competition among firms, several other factors affected returns. The market for initial public offerings cooled in the mid-1980s before collapsing after the stock market crash in 1987, and foreign corporations, particularly from Japan and Korea, flooded early-stage companies with capital.[16]

In response to the changing conditions, corporations that had sponsored in-house venture investment arms, including General Electric and Paine Webber either sold off or closed these venture capital units. Additionally, venture capital units within Chemical Bank and Continental Illinois National Bank, among others, began shifting their focus from funding early stage companies toward investments in more mature companies. Even industry founders J.H. Whitney & Company and Warburg Pincus began to transition toward leveraged buyouts and growth capital investments.[16][17][18]

Venture capital boom and the Internet Bubble [ edit ]

By the end of the 1980s, venture capital returns were relatively low, particularly in comparison with their emerging leveraged buyout cousins, due in part to the competition for hot startups, excess supply of IPOs and the inexperience of many venture capital fund managers. Growth in the venture capital industry remained limited throughout the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, increasing from $3 billion in 1983 to just over $4 billion more than a decade later in 1994.[19]

The advent of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s reinvigorated venture capital as investors saw companies with huge potential being formed. Netscape and Amazon (company) were founded in 1994, and Yahoo! in 1995. All were funded by venture capital. Internet IPOs—AOL in 1992; Netcom in 1994; UUNet, Spyglass and Netscape in 1995; Lycos, Excite, Yahoo!, CompuServe, Infoseek, C/NET, and E*Trade in 1996; and Amazon, ONSALE, Go2Net, N2K, NextLink, and SportsLine in 1997—generated enormous returns for their venture capital investors. These returns, and the performance of the companies post-IPO, caused a rush of money into venture capital, increasing the number of venture capital funds raised from about 40 in 1991 to more than 400 in 2000, and the amount of money committed to the sector from $1.5 billion in 1991 to more than $90 billion in 2000.[20]

The bursting of the Dot-com bubble in 2000 caused many venture capital firms to fail and financial results in the sector to decline.[citation needed]

Private equity crash [ edit ]

The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000 reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.

The Nasdaq crash and technology slump that started in March 2000 shook virtually the entire venture capital industry as valuations for startup technology companies collapsed. Over the next two years, many venture firms had been forced to write-off large proportions of their investments, and many funds were significantly "under water" (the values of the fund's investments were below the amount of capital invested). Venture capital investors sought to reduce the size of commitments they had made to venture capital funds, and, in numerous instances, investors sought to unload existing commitments for cents on the dollar in the secondary market. By mid-2003, the venture capital industry had shriveled to about half its 2001 capacity. Nevertheless, PricewaterhouseCoopers' MoneyTree Survey[21] shows that total venture capital investments held steady at 2003 levels through the second quarter of 2005.[citation needed]

Although the post-boom years represent just a small fraction of the peak levels of venture investment reached in 2000, they still represent an increase over the levels of investment from 1980 through 1995. As a percentage of GDP, venture investment was 0.058% in 1994, peaked at 1.087% (nearly 19 times the 1994 level) in 2000 and ranged from 0.164% to 0.182% in 2003 and 2004. The revival of an Internet-driven environment in 2004 through 2007 helped to revive the venture capital environment. However, as a percentage of the overall private-equity market, venture capital has still not reached its mid-1990s level, let alone its peak in 2000.[citation needed]

Venture capital funds, which were responsible for much of the fundraising volume in 2000 (the height of the dot-com bubble), raised only $25.1 billion in 2006, a 2% decline from 2005 and a significant decline from its peak.[22] The decline continued till their fortunes started to turn around in 2010 with $21.8 billion invested (not raised).[23] The industry continued to show phenomenal growth and in 2020 hit $80 billion in fresh capital.[24]

Financing [ edit ]

Obtaining venture capital is substantially different from raising debt or a loan. Lenders have a legal right to interest on a loan and repayment of the capital irrespective of the success or failure of a business. Venture capital is invested in exchange for an equity stake in the business. The return of the venture capitalist as a shareholder depends on the growth and profitability of the business. This return is generally earned when the venture capitalist "exits" by selling its shareholdings when the business is sold to another owner.[citation needed]

Venture capitalists are typically very selective in deciding what to invest in, with a Stanford survey of venture capitalists revealing that 100 companies were considered for every company receiving financing.[25] Ventures receiving financing must demonstrate an excellent management team, a large potential market, and most importantly high growth potential, as only such opportunities are likely capable of providing financial returns and a successful exit within the required time frame (typically 3–7 years) that venture capitalists expect.[citation needed]

Because investments are illiquid and require the extended time frame to harvest, venture capitalists are expected to carry out detailed due diligence prior to investment. Venture capitalists also are expected to nurture the companies in which they invest, in order to increase the likelihood of reaching an IPO stage when valuations are favourable. Venture capitalists typically assist at four stages in the company's development:[26]

Because there are no public exchanges listing their securities, private companies meet venture capital firms and other private-equity investors in several ways, including warm referrals from the investors' trusted sources and other business contacts; investor conferences and symposia; and summits where companies pitch directly to investor groups in face-to-face meetings, including a variant known as "Speed Venturing", which is akin to speed-dating for capital, where the investor decides within 10 minutes whether he wants a follow-up meeting. In addition, some new private online networks are emerging to provide additional opportunities for meeting investors.[27]

This need for high returns makes venture funding an expensive capital source for companies, and most suitable for businesses having large up-front capital requirements, which cannot be financed by cheaper alternatives such as debt. That is most commonly the case for intangible assets such as software, and other intellectual property, whose value is unproven. In turn, this explains why venture capital is most prevalent in the fast-growing technology and life sciences or biotechnology fields.[citation needed]

If a company does have the qualities venture capitalists seek including a solid business plan, a good management team, investment and passion from the founders, a good potential to exit the investment before the end of their funding cycle, and target minimum returns in excess of 40% per year, it will find it easier to raise venture capital.[citation needed]

Financing stages [ edit ]

There are typically six stages of venture round financing offered in venture capital, that roughly correspond to these stages of a company's development.[28]

Seed funding: The earliest round of financing needed to prove a new idea, often provided by angel investors. Equity crowdfunding is also emerging as an option for seed funding.

Start-up: Early stage firms that need funding for expenses associated with marketing and product development.

Growth (Series A round): Early sales and manufacturing funds. This is typically where VCs come in. Series A can be thought of as the first institutional round. Subsequent investment rounds are called Series B, Series C and so on. This is where most companies will have the most growth.

Second round: Working capital for early stage companies that are selling product, but not yet turning a profit. This can also be called Series B round and so on.

Expansion: Also called mezzanine financing, this is expansion money for a newly profitable company.

Exit of venture capitalist: VCs can exit through secondary sale or an IPO or an acquisition. Early stage VCs may exit in later rounds when new investors (VCs or private-equity investors) buy the shares of existing investors. Sometimes a company very close to an IPO may allow some VCs to exit and instead new investors may come in hoping to profit from the IPO.

Bridge financing is when a startup seeks funding in between full VC rounds. The objective is to raise a smaller amount of money to "bridge" the gap when current funds are expected to run out prior to planned future funding, intended to meet short-term working capital needs.[29]

Between the first round and the fourth round, venture-backed companies may also seek to take venture debt.[30]

Firms and funds [ edit ]

Venture capitalist [ edit ]

A venture capitalist or sometimes simply capitalist, is a person who makes capital investments in companies in exchange for an equity stake. The venture capitalist is often expected to bring managerial and technical expertise, as well as capital, to their investments. A venture capital fund refers to a pooled investment vehicle (in the United States, often an LP or LLC) that primarily invests the financial capital of third-party investors in enterprises that are too risky for the standard capital markets or bank loans. These funds are typically managed by a venture capital firm, which often employs individuals with technology backgrounds (scientists, researchers), business training and/or deep industry experience.[31]

A core skill within VC is the ability to identify novel or disruptive technologies that have the potential to generate high commercial returns at an early stage. By definition, VCs also take a role in managing entrepreneurial companies at an early stage, thus adding skills as well as capital, thereby differentiating VC from buy-out private equity, which typically invest in companies with proven revenue, and thereby potentially realizing much higher rates of returns. Inherent in realizing abnormally high rates of returns is the risk of losing all of one's investment in a given startup company. As a consequence, most venture capital investments are done in a pool format, where several investors combine their investments into one large fund that invests in many different startup companies. By investing in the pool format, the investors are spreading out their risk to many different investments instead of taking the chance of putting all of their money in one start up firm.

Diagram of the structure of a generic venture capital fund

Structure [ edit ]

Venture capital firms are typically structured as partnerships, the general partners of which serve as the managers of the firm and will serve as investment advisors to the venture capital funds raised. Venture capital firms in the United States may also be structured as limited liability companies, in which case the firm's managers are known as managing members. Investors in venture capital funds are known as limited partners. This constituency comprises both high-net-worth individuals and institutions with large amounts of available capital, such as state and private pension funds, university financial endowments, foundations, insurance companies, and pooled investment vehicles, called funds of funds.[32]

Types [ edit ]

Venture capitalist firms differ in their motivations[33] and approaches. There are multiple factors, and each firm is different.

Venture capital funds are generally three in types:[34]

1. Angel investors

2. Financial VCs

3. Strategic VCs

Some of the factors that influence VC decisions include:

Business situation: Some VCs tend to invest in new, disruptive ideas, or fledgling companies. Others prefer investing in established companies that need support to go public or grow.

Some invest solely in certain industries.

Some prefer operating locally while others will operate nationwide or even globally.

VC expectations can often vary. Some may want a quicker public sale of the company or expect fast growth. The amount of help a VC provides can vary from one firm to the next. There are also estimates on how big of an exit a VC will expect for your company if the size of the VC fund is $20M, estimate that they'll at least want you to exit for the size of the fund.[35]

Roles [ edit ]

Within the venture capital industry, the general partners and other investment professionals of the venture capital firm are often referred to as "venture capitalists" or "VCs". Typical career backgrounds vary, but, broadly speaking, venture capitalists come from either an operational or a finance background. Venture capitalists with an operational background (operating partner) tend to be former founders or executives of companies similar to those which the partnership finances or will have served as management consultants. Venture capitalists with finance backgrounds tend to have investment banking or other corporate finance experience.

Although the titles are not entirely uniform from firm to firm, other positions at venture capital firms include:

Position Role General Partners or GPs They run the Venture Capital firm and make the investment decisions on behalf of the fund. GPs typically put in personal capital up to 1–2% of the VC Fund size to show their commitment to the LPs. Venture partners Venture partners are not employees of the firm but are expected to source potential investment opportunities ("bring in deals") and typically are compensated only for those deals with which they are involved. Principal This is a mid-level investment professional position, and often considered a "partner-track" position. Principals will have been promoted from a senior associate position or who have commensurate experience in another field, such as investment banking, management consulting, or a market of particular interest to the strategy of the venture capital firm. Associate This is typically the most junior apprentice position within a venture capital firm. After a few successful years, an associate may move up to the "senior associate" position and potentially principal and beyond. Associates will often have worked for 1–2 years in another field, such as investment banking or management consulting. Analyst In some cases, a venture capital firm may offer an analyst role for fresh graduates who have no prior relevant experience. Entrepreneur-in-residence Entrepreneurs-in-residence (EIRs) are experts in a particular industry sector (e.g., biotechnology or social media) and perform due diligence on potential deals. EIRs are hired by venture capital firms temporarily (6 to 18 months) and are expected to develop and pitch startup ideas to their host firm, although neither party is bound to work with each other. Some EIRs move on to executive positions within a portfolio company.

Structure of the funds [ edit ]

Most venture capital funds have a fixed life of 10 years, with the possibility of a few years of extensions to allow for private companies still seeking liquidity. The investing cycle for most funds is generally three to five years, after which the focus is managing and making follow-on investments in an existing portfolio.[36] This model was pioneered by successful funds in Silicon Valley through the 1980s to invest in technological trends broadly but only during their period of ascendance, and to cut exposure to management and marketing risks of any individual firm or its product.

In such a fund, the investors have a fixed commitment to the fund that is initially unfunded and subsequently "called down" by the venture capital fund over time as the fund makes its investments. There are substantial penalties for a limited partner (or investor) that fails to participate in a capital call.[37]

It can take anywhere from a month to several years for venture capitalists to raise money from limited partners for their fund. At the time when all of the money has been raised, the fund is said to be closed and the 10-year lifetime begins. Some funds have partial closes when one half (or some other amount) of the fund has been raised. The vintage year generally refers to the year in which the fund was closed and may serve as a means to stratify VC funds for comparison.

From an investor's point of view, funds can be: (1) traditional—where all the investors invest with equal terms; or (2) asymmetric—where different investors have different terms. Typically asymmetry is seen in cases where investors have opposing interests, such as the need to not have unrelated business taxable income in the case of public tax-exempt investors.[38]

Investment Decision Process [ edit ]

The decision process to fund a company is elusive. One study report in the Harvard Business Review[39] states that VCs rarely use standard financial analytics.[39] First, VCs engage in a process known as "generating deal flow," where they reach out to their network to source potential investments.[39] The study also reported that few VCs use any type of financial analytics when they assess deals; VCs are primarily concerned about the cash returned from the deal as a multiple of the cash invested.[39] According to 95% of the VC firms surveyed, VCs cite the founder or founding team as the most important factor in their investment decision.[39] Other factors are also considered, including intellectual property rights and the state of the economy.[40] Some argue that the most important thing a VC looks for in a company is high-growth.[41]

The funding decision process has spawned bias in the form of a large disparity between the funding men and minority groups, such as women and people of color.[42][43][44] In 2021, female founders only received 2% of VC funding in the United States.[45][43] Some research studies have found that VCs evaluate women differently and are less likely to fund female founders.[42]

Compensation [ edit ]

Venture capitalists are compensated through a combination of management fees and carried interest (often referred to as a "two and 20" arrangement):

Payment Implementation Management fees Quarterly payments made by the limited partners to the fund's manager to pay for the firm's investment operations.[46] In a typical venture capital fund, the general partners receive an annual management fee between 2% and 2.5% of the committed capital.[47] Carried interest A share of the profits of the fund, typically 20%, paid to the fund's general partner as a performance incentive. The remaining 80% of the profits are allocated to the general partner and limited partners in proportion to their contributed capital.[48] Strong limited partner interest in top-tier venture firms has led to a general trend toward terms more favorable to the general partner, and certain groups are able to command a carried interest of 25 to 30% for their funds.[49]

Because a fund may run out of capital prior to the end of its life, larger venture capital firms usually have several overlapping funds at the same time; doing so lets the larger firm keep specialists in all stages of the development of firms almost constantly engaged. Smaller firms tend to thrive or fail with their initial industry contacts; by the time the fund cashes out, an entirely new generation of technologies and people is ascending, whom the general partners may not know well, and so it is prudent to reassess and shift industries or personnel rather than attempt to simply invest more in the industry or people the partners already know.[citation needed]

Alternatives [ edit ]

Because of the strict requirements venture capitalists have for potential investments, many entrepreneurs seek seed funding from angel investors, who may be more willing to invest in highly speculative opportunities, or may have a prior relationship with the entrepreneur. Additionally, entrepreneurs may seek alternative financing, such as revenue-based financing, to avoid giving up equity ownership in the business. For entrepreneurs seeking more than just funding, startup studios can be an appealing alternative to venture capitalists, as they provide operational support and an experienced team.[50]

Furthermore, many venture capital firms will only seriously evaluate an investment in a start-up company otherwise unknown to them if the company can prove at least some of its claims about the technology and/or market potential for its product or services. To achieve this, or even just to avoid the dilutive effects of receiving funding before such claims are proven, many start-ups seek to self-finance sweat equity until they reach a point where they can credibly approach outside capital providers such as venture capitalists or angel investors. This practice is called "bootstrapping".

Equity crowdfunding is emerging as an alternative to traditional venture capital. Traditional crowdfunding is an approach to raising the capital required for a new project or enterprise by appealing to large numbers of ordinary people for small donations. While such an approach has long precedents in the sphere of charity, it is receiving renewed attention from entrepreneurs, now that social media and online communities make it possible to reach out to a group of potentially interested supporters at very low cost. Some equity crowdfunding models are also being applied specifically for startup funding, such as those listed at Comparison of crowd funding services. One of the reasons to look for alternatives to venture capital is the problem of the traditional VC model. The traditional VCs are shifting their focus to later-stage investments, and return on investment of many VC funds have been low or negative.[27][51]

In Europe and India, Media for equity is a partial alternative to venture capital funding. Media for equity investors are able to supply start-ups with often significant advertising campaigns in return for equity. In Europe, an investment advisory firm offers young ventures the option to exchange equity for services investment; their aim is to guide ventures through the development stage to arrive at a significant funding, mergers and acquisition, or other exit strategy.[52]

In industries where assets can be securitized effectively because they reliably generate future revenue streams or have a good potential for resale in case of foreclosure, businesses may more cheaply be able to raise debt to finance their growth. Good examples would include asset-intensive extractive industries such as mining, or manufacturing industries. Offshore funding is provided via specialist venture capital trusts, which seek to use securitization in structuring hybrid multi-market transactions via an SPV (special purpose vehicle): a corporate entity that is designed solely for the purpose of the financing.

In addition to traditional venture capital and angel networks, groups have emerged, which allow groups of small investors or entrepreneurs themselves to compete in a privatized business plan competition where the group itself serves as the investor through a democratic process.[53]

Law firms are also increasingly acting as an intermediary between clients seeking venture capital and the firms providing it.[54]

Other forms include venture resources that seek to provide non-monetary support to launch a new venture.

Role in employment [ edit ]

Every year, there are nearly 2 million businesses created in the US, but only 600–800 get venture capital funding.[55] According to the National Venture Capital Association, 11% of private sector jobs come from venture-backed companies and venture-backed revenue accounts for 21% of US GDP.[56]

Gender disparities [ edit ]

In 2020 female founded companies raised only 2.8% of capital investment from venture capital, the highest amount recorded.[57][58]

Babson College's Diana Report found that the number of women partners in VC firms decreased from 10% in 1999 to 6% in 2014. The report also found that 97% of VC-funded businesses had male chief executives, and that businesses with all-male teams were more than four times as likely to receive VC funding compared to teams with at least one woman.[59] Currently, about 3 percent of all venture capital is going to woman-led companies. More than 75% of VC firms in the US did not have any female venture capitalists at the time they were surveyed.[60] It was found that a greater fraction of VC firms had never had a woman represent them on the board of one of their portfolio companies. In 2017 only 2.2% of all VC funding went to female founders.[61]

For comparison, a UC Davis study focusing on large public companies in California found 49.5% with at least one female board seat.[62] When the latter results were published, some San Jose Mercury News readers dismissed the possibility that sexism was a cause. In a follow-up Newsweek article, Nina Burleigh asked "Where were all these offended people when women like Heidi Roizen published accounts of having a venture capitalist stick her hand in his pants under a table while a deal was being discussed?"[63][64]

Geographical differences [ edit ]

Venture capital, as an industry, originated in the United States, and American firms have traditionally been the largest participants in venture deals with the bulk of venture capital being deployed in American companies. However, increasingly, non-US venture investment is growing, and the number and size of non-US venture capitalists have been expanding.[citation needed]

Venture capital has been used as a tool for economic development in a variety of developing regions. In many of these regions, with less developed financial sectors, venture capital plays a role in facilitating access to finance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which in most cases would not qualify for receiving bank loans.[citation needed]

In the year of 2008, while VC funding were still majorly dominated by U.S. money ($28.8 billion invested in over 2550 deals in 2008), compared to international fund investments ($13.4 billion invested elsewhere), there has been an average 5% growth in the venture capital deals outside the US, mainly in China and Europe.[65] Geographical differences can be significant. For instance, in the UK, 4% of British investment goes to venture capital, compared to about 33% in the U.S.[66]

VC funding has been shown to be positively related to a country's individualistic culture.[67] According to economist Jeffrey Funk however more than 90% of US startups valued over $1 billion lost money between 2019–2020 and return on investment from VC barely exceed return from public stock markets over the last 25 years.[68]

United States [ edit ]

Quarterly U.S. Venture Capital Investments 1995–2017

Venture capital investment by area

Venture capital by state (2016)

Venture capitalists invested some $29.1 billion in 3,752 deals in the U.S. through the fourth quarter of 2011, according to a report by the National Venture Capital Association. The same numbers for all of 2010 were $23.4 billion in 3,496 deals.[69]

According to a report by Dow Jones VentureSource, venture capital funding fell to $6.4 billion in the US in the first quarter of 2013, an 11.8% drop from the first quarter of 2012, and a 20.8% decline from 2011. Venture firms have added $4.2 billion into their funds this year, down from $6.3 billion in the first quarter of 2013, but up from $2.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012.[70]

Australia and New Zealand [ edit ]

In Australia and New Zealand, there are more than one hundred active VC funds, syndicates, or angel investors making VC-style investments.

The State of Startup Funding report found that in 2021, over AUD $10 billion AUD was invested into Australian and New Zealand startups across 682 deals. This represents a 3x increase from the $3.1 billion that was invested in 2020.[71]

Some notable Australian and New Zealand startup success stories include graphic design company Canva,[72] financial services provider Airwallex, New Zealand payments provider Vend (acquired by Lightspeed), rent-to-buy company OwnHome,[73] and direct-to-consumer propositions such as Eucalyptus (a house of direct-to-consumer telehealth brands), and Lyka (a pet wellness company).[74]

In 2022, the largest Australian funds are Blackbird Ventures,Square Peg Capital, and Airtree Ventures. These three funds have more than $1 billion AUD under management across multiple funds. These funds have funding from institutional capital, including AustralianSuper and Hostplus, family offices, and sophisticated individual high-net-wealth investors.[75]

Outside of the 'Big 3', other notable institutional funds include AfterWork Ventures,[76] Artesian, Folklore Ventures, Equity Venture Partners, Our Innovation Fund, Investible, Main Sequence Ventures (the VC arm of the CSIRO), and Tenacious Ventures.

As the number of capital providers in the Australian and New Zealand ecosystem has grown, funds have started to specialise and innovate to differentiate themselves. For example, Tenacious Ventures is a $35 million specialised agritech fund,[77] while AfterWork Ventures is a 'community-powered fund' that has coalesced a group of 120 experienced operators from across Australia's startups and tech companies. Its community is invested in its fund, and lean into assist with sourcing and evaluating deal opportunities, as well as supporting companies post-investment.[78]

Several Australian corporates have corporate VC arms, including NAB Ventures, Reinventure (associated with Westpac), IAG Firemark Ventures, and Telstra Ventures.

Bulgaria [ edit ]

The Bulgarian venture capital industry has been growing rapidly in the past decade. As of the beginning of 2021, there are 18 VC and growth equity firms on the local market, with the total funding available for technology startups exceeding €200M. According to BVCA – Bulgarian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, 59 transactions of total value of €29.4 million took place in 2020.[79] Most of the venture capital investments in Bulgaria are concentrated in the seed and Series A stages. Sofia-based LAUNCHub Ventures recently launched one of the biggest funds in the region, with a target size of €70 million.[80]

Mexico [ edit ]

The Venture Capital industry in Mexico is a fast-growing sector in the country that, with the support of institutions and private funds, is estimated to reach US$100 billion invested by 2018.[81]

Israel [ edit ]

In Israel, high-tech entrepreneurship and venture capital have flourished well beyond the country's relative size. As it has very little natural resources and, historically has been forced to build its economy on knowledge-based industries, its VC industry has rapidly developed, and nowadays has about 70 active venture capital funds, of which 14 international VCs with Israeli offices, and additional 220 international funds which actively invest in Israel. In addition, as of 2010, Israel led the world in venture capital invested per capita. Israel attracted $170 per person compared to $75 in the USA.[82] About two thirds of the funds invested were from foreign sources, and the rest domestic. In 2013, joined 62 other Israeli firms on the Nasdaq.[83]

Canada [ edit ]

Canadian technology companies have attracted interest from the global venture capital community partially as a result of generous tax incentive through the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) investment tax credit program.[citation needed] The basic incentive available to any Canadian corporation performing R&D is a refundable tax credit that is equal to 20% of "qualifying" R&D expenditures (labour, material, R&D contracts, and R&D equipment). An enhanced 35% refundable tax credit of available to certain small) Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs). Because the CCPC rules require a minimum of 50% Canadian ownership in the company performing R&D, foreign investors who would like to benefit from the larger 35% tax credit must accept minority position in the company, which might not be desirable. The SR&ED program does not restrict the export of any technology or intellectual property that may have been developed with the benefit of SR&ED tax incentives.[citation needed]

Canada also has a fairly unusual form of venture capital generation in its labour-sponsored venture capital corporations (LSVCC). These funds, also known as Retail Venture Capital or Labour Sponsored Investment Funds (LSIF), are generally sponsored by labor unions and offer tax breaks from government to encourage retail investors to purchase the funds. Generally, these Retail Venture Capital funds only invest in companies where the majority of employees are in Canada. However, innovative structures have been developed to permit LSVCCs to direct in Canadian subsidiaries of corporations incorporated in jurisdictions outside of Canada.[citation needed]

Switzerland [ edit ]

Many Swiss start-ups are university spin-offs, in particular from its federal institutes of technology in Lausanne and Zurich.[84] According to a study by the London School of Economics analysing 130 ETH Zurich spin-offs over 10 years, about 90% of these start-ups survived the first five critical years, resulting in an average annual IRR of more than 43%.[85] Switzerland's most active early-stage investors are The Zurich Cantonal Bank, Swiss Founders Fund, as well as a number of angel investor clubs.[86]

Europe [ edit ]

Leading early-stage venture capital investors in Europe include Mark Tluszcz of Mangrove Capital Partners and Danny Rimer of Index Ventures, both of whom were named on Forbes Magazine's Midas List of the world's top dealmakers in technology venture capital in 2007.[87] In 2020, the first Italian Venture capital Fund named Primo Space was launched by Primomiglio SGR. This fund first closed €58 million out a target €80 million and is focused on Space investing.[88]

Nordic countries [ edit ]

Recent years have seen a revival of the Nordic venture scene with more than €3 billion raised by VC funds in the Nordic region over the last five years. Over the past five years, a total of €2.7 billion has been invested into Nordic startups. Known Nordic early-stage venture capital funds include NorthZone (Sweden), Maki.vc (Finland) and ByFounders (Copenhagen).[89]

Poland [ edit ]

As of March 2019, there are 130 active VC firms in Poland which have invested locally in over 750 companies, an average of 9 companies per portfolio. Since 2016, new legal institutions have been established for entities implementing investments in enterprises in the seed or startup phase. In 2018, venture capital funds invested €178M in Polish startups (0.033% of GDP). As of March 2019, total assets managed by VC companies operating in Poland are estimated at €2.6B. The total value of investments of the Polish VC market is worth €209.2M.[90]

Asia [ edit ]

India is catching up with the West in the field of venture capital and a number of venture capital funds have a presence in the country (IVCA). In 2006, the total amount of private equity and venture capital in India reached $7.5 billion across 299 deals.[91] In the Indian market, venture capital consists of investing in equity, quasi-equity, or conditional loans in order to promote unlisted, high-risk, or high-tech firms driven by technically or professionally qualified entrepreneurs. It is also used to refer to investors "providing seed", "start-up and first-stage financing",[92] or financing companies that have demonstrated extraordinary business potential. Venture capital refers to capital investment; equity and debt ;both of which carry indubitable risk. The anticipated risk is very high. The venture capital industry follows the concept of "high risk, high return", innovative entrepreneurship, knowledge-based ideas and human capital intensive enterprises have become common as venture capitalists invest in risky finance to encourage innovation.[93]

China is also starting to develop a venture capital industry (CVCA).

Vietnam is experiencing its first foreign venture capitals, including IDG Venture Vietnam ($100 million) and DFJ Vinacapital ($35 million)[94]

Singapore is widely recognized and featured as one of the hottest places to both start up and invest, mainly due to its healthy ecosystem, its strategic location and connectedness to foreign markets.[95] With 100 deals valued at US$3.5 billion, Singapore saw a record value of PE and VC investments in 2016. The number of PE and VC investments increased substantially over the last 5 years: In 2015, Singapore recorded 81 investments with an aggregate value of US$2.2 billion while in 2014 and 2013, PE and VC deal values came to US$2.4 billion and US$0.9 billion respectively. With 53 percent, tech investments account for the majority of deal volume. Moreover, Singapore is home to two of South-East Asia's largest unicorns. Garena is reportedly the highest-valued unicorn in the region with a US$3.5 billion price tag, while Grab is the highest-funded, having raised a total of US$1.43 billion since its incorporation in 2012.[96] Start-ups and small businesses in Singapore receive support from policymakers and the local government fosters the role VCs play to support entrepreneurship in Singapore and the region. For instance, in 2016, Singapore's National Research Foundation (NRF) has given out grants up to around $30 million to four large local enterprises for investments in startups in the city-state. This first of its kind partnership NRF has entered into is designed to encourage these enterprises to source for new technologies and innovative business models.[97] Currently, the rules governing VC firms are being reviewed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to make it easier to set up funds and increase funding opportunities for start-ups. This mainly includes simplifying and shortening the authorization process for new venture capital managers and to study whether existing incentives that have attracted traditional asset managers here will be suitable for the VC sector. A public consultation on the proposals was held in January 2017 with changes expected to be introduced by July.[98]

Middle East and North Africa [ edit ]

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) venture capital industry is an early stage of development but growing. According to H1 2019 MENA Venture Investment Report by MAGNiTT, 238 startup investment deals have taken place in the region in the first half of 2019, totaling in $471 million in investments. Compared to 2018’s H1 report, this represents an increase of 66% in total funding and 28% in number of deals.

According to the report, the UAE is the most active ecosystem in the region with 26% of the deals made in H1, followed by Egypt at 21%, and Lebanon at 13%. In terms of deals by sector, fintech remains the most active industry with 17% of the deals made, followed by e-commerce at 12%, and delivery and transport at 8%.

The report also notes that a total of 130 institutions invested in MENA-based startups in H1 2019, 30% of which were headquartered outside the MENA, demonstrating international appetite for investments in the region. 15 startup exits have been recorded in H1 2019, with Careem’s $3.1 billion acquisition by Uber being the first unicorn exit in the region.[99] Other notable exits include exit to Amazon in 2017 for $650 million.[100]

Sub-Saharan Africa [ edit ]

The Southern African venture capital industry is developing. The South African Government and Revenue Service is following the international trend of using tax-efficient vehicles to propel economic growth and job creation through venture capital. Section 12 J of the Income Tax Act was updated to include venture capital. Companies are allowed to use a tax-efficient structure similar to VCTs in the UK. Despite the above structure, the government needs to adjust its regulation around intellectual property, exchange control and other legislation to ensure that Venture capital succeeds.[citation needed]

Currently, there are not many venture capital funds in operation and it is a small community; however, the number of venture funds are steadily increasing with new incentives slowly coming in from government. Funds are difficult to come by and due to the limited funding, companies are more likely to receive funding if they can demonstrate initial sales or traction and the potential for significant growth. The majority of the venture capital in Sub-Saharan Africa is centered on South Africa and Kenya.[citation needed]

Entrepreneurship is a key to growth. Governments will need to ensure business friendly regulatory environments in order to help foster innovation. In 2019, venture capital startup funding grew to 1.3 billion dollars, increasing rapidly. The causes are as of yet unclear, but education is certainly a factor.[101]

Confidential information [ edit ]

Unlike public companies, information regarding an entrepreneur's business is typically confidential and proprietary. As part of the due diligence process, most venture capitalists will require significant detail with respect to a company's business plan. Entrepreneurs must remain vigilant about sharing information with venture capitalists that are investors in their competitors. Most venture capitalists treat information confidentially, but as a matter of business practice, they do not typically enter into Non Disclosure Agreements because of the potential liability issues those agreements entail. Entrepreneurs are typically well advised to protect truly proprietary intellectual property.[citation needed]

Limited partners of venture capital firms typically have access only to limited amounts of information with respect to the individual portfolio companies in which they are invested and are typically bound by confidentiality provisions in the fund's limited partnership agreement.[citation needed]

Governmental regulations [ edit ]

There are several strict guidelines regulating those that deal in venture capital. Namely, they are not allowed to advertise or solicit business in any form as per the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines.[102]

In popular culture [ edit ]

In books [ edit ]

Mark Coggins' novel Vulture Capital (2002) features a venture capitalist protagonist who investigates the disappearance of the chief scientist in a biotech firm in which he has invested. Coggins also worked in the industry and was co-founder of a dot-com startup. [103]

(2002) features a venture capitalist protagonist who investigates the disappearance of the chief scientist in a biotech firm in which he has invested. Coggins also worked in the industry and was co-founder of a dot-com startup. Drawing on his experience as reporter covering technology for the New York Times , Matt Richtel produced the novel Hooked (2007), in which the actions of the main character's deceased girlfriend, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, play a key role in the plot. [104]

, Matt Richtel produced the novel (2007), in which the actions of the main character's deceased girlfriend, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, play a key role in the plot. Great, detailed work on VC method of funding.[105]

In comics [ edit ]

In the Dilbert comic strip, a character named "Vijay, the World's Most Desperate Venture Capitalist" frequently makes appearances, offering bags of cash to anyone with even a hint of potential. In one strip, he offers two small children with good math grades money based on the fact that if they marry and produce an engineer baby he can invest in the infant's first idea. The children respond that they are already looking for mezzanine funding.

comic strip, a character named "Vijay, the World's Most Desperate Venture Capitalist" frequently makes appearances, offering bags of cash to anyone with even a hint of potential. In one strip, he offers two small children with good math grades money based on the fact that if they marry and produce an engineer baby he can invest in the infant's first idea. The children respond that they are already looking for mezzanine funding. Robert von Goeben and Kathryn Siegler produced a comic strip called The VC between the years 1997 and 2000 that parodied the industry, often by showing humorous exchanges between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.[106] Von Goeben was a partner in Redleaf Venture Management when he began writing the strip.[107]

In film [ edit ]

In Wedding Crashers (2005), Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn) and John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) are bachelors who create appearances to play at different weddings of complete strangers, and a large part of the movie follows them posing as venture capitalists from New Hampshire.

(2005), Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn) and John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) are bachelors who create appearances to play at different weddings of complete strangers, and a large part of the movie follows them posing as venture capitalists from New Hampshire. The documentary Something Ventured (2011) chronicled the recent history of American technology venture capitalists.

In television [ edit ]

In the TV series Dragons' Den , various startup companies pitch their business plans to a panel of venture capitalists.

, various startup companies pitch their business plans to a panel of venture capitalists. In the ABC reality television show Shark Tank , venture capitalists ("Sharks") hear entrepreneurs' pitches and select which ones they will invest in.

, venture capitalists ("Sharks") hear entrepreneurs' pitches and select which ones they will invest in. The short-lived Bravo reality TV show Start-Ups: Silicon Valley had participation from venture capitalists in Silicon Valley.

had participation from venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. The sitcom Silicon Valley parodies startup companies and venture capital culture.

parodies startup companies and venture capital culture. The AMC Drama Halt and Catch Fire features the use of Venture Capital firms for the startup companies during the PC revolution of the 80s and rise of the world-wide-web in the early 90s.

See also [ edit ]

Notes [ edit ]

^ In 1971, a series of articles entitled "Silicon Valley USA" were published in the Electronic News , a weekly trade publication, giving rise to the use of the term Silicon Valley ^ The "prudent man rule" is a fiduciary responsibility of investment managers under ERISA. Under the original application, each investment was expected to adhere to risk standards on its own merits, limiting the ability of investment managers to make any investments deemed potentially risky. Under the revised 1978 interpretation, the concept of portfolio diversification of risk, measuring risk at the aggregate portfolio level rather than the investment level to satisfy fiduciary standards would also be accepted.

Further reading [ edit ]

National Venture Capital Association

NVCA unites the U.S. venture ecosystem to support the formation of high-growth companies and ensure the U.S. remains the most competitive environment in the world for entrepreneurs.

NVCA is a nonprofit association powered by our members. We convene venture capital investors, entrepreneurs, and industry partners to shape public policy priorities, to develop new industry initiatives, to provide premier research, and to participate in professional development opportunities with their peers.