Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

December 2, 2009

Herd Mentality

Filed under: Entrepreneurship — Tags: — Raja @ 10:38 am

Fred writes about the herd instinct prevalent among the VC community.

One of things that always amazes me about investors is the way we move in herds. Developing markets are in, everyone invests in developing markets. Dubai blows up, everyone moves out of developing markets. Real-time is hot. Everyone invests in real-time.

I think there are two approaches that work in the venture business. One is the contrarian approach. When everyone wants to be a consumer web investor, do software as a service/enterprise. Go where the money isn’t.

Or you can just be earlier than everyone and anticipate where the herd is going to be next. That is really hard, maybe too hard to do well over a sustained period of time.

But I do believe that both of those approaches will get you top tier returns if you execute them well.

Following the herd, however, is not a recipe for good investment performance. And yet so many do it. That’s why they are called herds.

I think the same goes for the entrepreneurs. Contrarian approach can work well if you pick the opportuities smartly. There are large market opportunites out there that do not require a lot of money to get started and do not have flocks of startups running after. These are the blue oceans as described by Kim and Mauborgne in their seminal book Blue Ocean Strategy.  They are not easy to find else people will find them but they are out there. Smart entrepreneurs will find and go after them.

October 16, 2009

Insights from an Indian VC

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, India — Tags: — Raja @ 10:03 am

Ashish Gupta, a noted VC from India and a dear frend, is sharing his insights on Indian startup ecosystem with Sramana Mitra.I highly recommend this interview to anyone that wants to understand the VC scene in India. You can follow the interview on Sramana’s blog.

Dr. Ashish Gupta is a co-founder of Helion and serves on the boards of Gridstone Research, Jivox, Kirusa, MuSigma, Naukri.com, and SMS Gupshup. He has co-founded Tavant Technologies and Junglee. His investments include Daksh (IBM), Odesk, Obongo (AOL), Speedera (Akamai), MakeMyTrip, Merittrac (Manipal Group), and Kaboodle (Hearst). Ashish is a Kauffman Fellow and holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree from IIT Kanpur, where he was awarded the President’s Gold medal. He has written several patents, publications, and a book published by MIT Press.

SM: Ashish, to start could you give us a macro picture of what you have seen in the Indian venture market from 2005 to 2009?

AG: There are several things that are working. The number of people who are willing to be entrepreneurs and who have a very mature view of how to build companies as opposed to inexperienced entrepreneurs has increased. The entire ecosystem to support entrepreneurs has improved, although it is nothing like the Valley. That is not even a fair comparison because the Valley has a different value system.

Another interesting piece which is working is consumer demand. It has not only continued to speed up: What we see as a downturn is probably more of a consolidation phase as far as India is concerned. After the consolidation, growth will continue unabated. Clearly, some sectors are not going to be qualified as such. Real estate prices were way out of the ballpark, so that is not consolidation but rather correction. Consumer demand, however, went through a period of consolidation.

SM: Even on the real estate side consumer demand continues?

AG: It has gone back up. Pricing has readjusted, but demand has gone back up. The other thing that has worked reasonably well is the view that investors themselves are taking off that business. I think that all of us have learned a lesson in seeing where deals were overpriced. If you ask me to look back to 2005 until now and say whether the investor group is more mature, more committed, and better equipped, I would say absolutely yes. Was there misbehavior in the middle? Yes. Most of us will get punished for that misbehavior, but net/net is it an evolution in the right direction.

SM: I see two kinds of entrepreneurs working in the Indian ecosystem. One is the kind who goes back and forth between India and the US, and the other is the resident entrepreneur. Can you separate those two groups? Is there as much of an exodus from the Valley back to India as the press makes it out to be?

AG: From the perspective of returnees becoming entrepreneurs, those numbers are not very high. Starting product companies out of India is a mammoth task. I know several who tried to return to India and start a company, and they all returned to the US. A lot of the people who go back to India from the Valley are steeped in a product-building culture. A few who have returned and done well have morphed their companies into hands-and- feet-on-the-street kinds of companies. But there are not enough of those examples for me to tell you that there is a return exodus.

Most of the people who are relocating are returning to mid-level management positions inside of large companies. That, in my knowledge, defines the bulk of people going back. They are expats going back to Cisco, Intel, and IBM. That makes a lot of sense. When you want to go back, you want an institution over your head.

We are also beginning to see a fair number of people who are coming back to work for smaller companies. That is the number that is meaningfully accelerated, particularly over the past year. Is the exodus increasing? Compared to theplast five years? Yes, but for large and mid-tier companies, not to start companies. The romantic notion that hoards of entrepreneurs are returning to start companies is not something that I have seen.

SM: What about the category of entrepreneurs who are working in the Valley but leveraging India in a big way?

AG: You are probably talking to the wrong person in that regard. I have always been a skeptic of startups having engineering outsourced to India. Often what is saved in cost is paid for in time to market. It works with companies that have a founder class there who understands what product is being built without specs and who can complete it with the same intensity as opposed to trying to hiring someone there.

In that context, the number of people who are leveraging India to get stuff done, I think, has marginally gone down. Even the people who were doing it before were often doing it to get extension-type work done.

September 24, 2009

Twitter valued at $1B

Filed under: Business, Internet — Tags: , , — Raja @ 10:34 am

Twitter is raising $100M funding at $1B valuation.

Twitter

Twitter, the fashionable microblogging service, is set to close a round of financing of around $100 million that values the three-and-a-half-year-old start-up at $1 billion, according to a person briefed on the company’s plans.

The investors include Insight Venture Partners, a New York venture capital firm, T. Rowe Price, the mutual fund company, and the current Twitter backers Spark Capital and Institutional Venture Partners.

Twitter does not necessarily need the capital. It previously raised $55 million and says it has only spent $25 million of that cash. But the company has big plans to expand the service from its roughly 50 million current users and to ultimately catch up to Facebook — which recently reached 300 million members. Both of these companies believe they can one day reach a billion users around the world — nearly the entire current population of the Internet. The extra cash, this person said, will help the company keep up with demand and build out the service.

It is a good move for twitter to take the money while the frenzy lasts. It is a testament to their popularity that they are able to get such an insane valuation in this tough funding climate. I think they are way overvalued at $1B. The same goes for Facebook. Time will prove this right.

The only caveat to this funding is that they just bacame too expensive for anyone to acquire them. So their only exit hope now is an IPO. Good luck with that.

August 7, 2009

Mobile opportunities

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Mobile, Technology, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 10:00 pm

Union Square Ventures has a post on the set of mobile opportunites they see on the horizon. In particular they feel mobile native applications that take advantage of mobile phone’s uniqe capabilities will be key. They identify some markets that are ripe for innovation in mobile native applications.

We are fascinated by the disruption underway in mobile applications. Carriers seem to have lost their role as gatekeepers for applications as smartphone sales are rapidly ramping and “app stores” or direct downloads are the new distribution models. This is exciting as it opens up a whole new arena for startups to compete in. Here is some of our early thinking about this with the goal of getting a discussion going.

The challenge for startups (and investors!) has been identifying opportunities that are “native” to the new platforms. By “native” we mean opportunities that simply did not exist previously and cannot exist without the phone. For instance, we would not consider delivering breaking news to a mobile a native opportunity, as a startup rarely has a better chance of being “CNN for mobile” than CNN does.

Native opportunities are the ones that make use of unique capabilities of mobile platforms. Here is a starter list of such capabilities:

* Location. To be precise this should really say “high resolution and continuous location” because computers too have location, but IP geo-lookup is a lot coarser grained, less reliable and most importantly not available when the user is not at their computer.

* Proximity. This could simply be thought of as location, but it is likely to be so important that it deserves its own mention. Knowing the location of a user makes it possible to determine not just where that user is in relation to stores, landmarks, etc. but also to other users.

* Touch. Not all smartphones have touch screens (most Blackberries don’t), but touch is an important and (almost) unique capability.

* Audio input. This may not seem like a big one, but the fact that all phones have it (hard to be a phone otherwise) makes it unique. Building a desktop app or web app that relies on audio input is a bit more challenging.

* Video input. Sure you can attach a camera to a PC (and most Macs have one built-in), but that camera is never where the user needs it, except for video chat. Also you can take an image with your regular camera and import it into the computer but that adds at least three steps which will result in a huge drop-off rate and prevent any immediacy. So having video input that is always and conveniently available is a unique capability.

Something that is noticeably absent from the list of unique capabilities is (data) connectivity. This is new for phones, but it has always existed on the web, so it is unlikely to provide an opening for startups. For instance, wanting to be a streaming music service for mobile won’t easily give a startup a leg up on existing streaming services.

Each of these unique capabilities, taken individually, is not novel. For example, Palm devices brought touch to consumers in the 90s and location has been available on standalone GPS devices for decades. But the convergence of all of these features on a single device with access to an internet connection will allow new behaviors and applications to emerge that were not previously possible on any other platform. The potential emergence of new behaviors is likely to be as important — if not more so — than these technical capabilities themselves. After all, there were no large changes in technology that allowed Facebook to take off; rather it was a social shift in personal information sharing.

We don’t know which native applications will emerge as ones that combine these unique capabilities and new behaviors into true breakout services, but here are some categories that we find interesting along with some of the challenges that they face:

* Location-based social networking, such as Loopt, Brightkite and foursquare. The big question in this category is whether these new networks will gain enough scale that they can compete effectively with the mobile offerings of existing social networks, or if the mobile networks differentiation in value proposition will be insufficient to overcome the current gap in scale.

* Gaming, such as Rolando and FieldRunners. As evidenced by reviewing the Top 25 apps at any given time, gaming has been one of the killer categories for the iphone. However, games played on mobile phones that don’t leverage the unique capabilities are likely to be quickly dominated by the large existing publishers. For example, currently 7 of the top 25 best-selling paid games are major publisher releases. There would seem, however, to be an opening for a new type of gaming experience, such as mainstream versions of Alternate Reality Games (which using the phones might become “Augmented Reality Games”).

* Shopping applications will likely be interesting and there has already been an early exit with SnapTell being acquired by Amazon. Most US-based mobile shopping applications simply supplement the real-world shopping experience with more information (barcode scan sending you to Google, BBB, Consumer Watch info, price comparison, etc…). This behavior contrasts with Asian markets where actual commerce/checkout via mobile is far more prevalent. We’re interested in seeing if the unique capabilities of smartphones will accelerate mobile shopping all the way through checkout on the phone.

* Healthcare, such as Epocrates for practitioners and LoseIt for consumers. Healthcare practitioners and consumers are two key target audiences for mobile applications and their needs vary greatly. The practitioners are generally a lower scale and higher ARPU market whereas the consumers are a higher scale and lower ARPU market.

One notable absence from this set of categories is navigation. While this will clearly be an important category, we expect companies that have established the technology necessary to deliver navigation on previous custom devices to dominate on the phones as well. For example, the iPhone SDK license agreement disallows “real time route guidance” applications. There was speculation that this restriction was put in place because Apple wanted a major navigation company to tackle this problem first, and, subsequently, TomTom produced a great implementation at WWDC.

There is a good chance that the truly breakthrough application category is not on this list. It will be obvious in hindsight but a lot harder to anticipate. If you are working on a native application, please tell us about it.

It is great to see mobile healthcare as one of the makets they identify for disruption. We are playing in that market segment with MDava in India.

July 7, 2009

VC Old Boy Club

Filed under: Business, Entrepreneurship — Tags: — Raja @ 6:32 pm

BW has a fascinating back story on how Marc and Ben were able to raise $300M VC fund in this tough environment.

The big news out this week in the venture capital market is the launch of Andreessen Horowitz, a new $300 million venture capital fund co-founded by Marc Andreeseen, a tech visionary who founded Netscape Communications, the startup that triggered the Internet tsunami.

Raising $300 million for a first time fund is an incredible achievement in today’s depressed capital-starved economy. How did Andreessen and his long-time business partner and co-investor Ben Horowitz pull it off? Well, tops on the list is the stellar reputation and track record of this pair. Andreessen has been at the forefront of the three major technology trends of the last 20 years: The Web, cloud computing and social networking.

After Andreessen launched Netscape, he and Horowitz founded tech service provider Opsware, which Hewlett-Packard bought in 2007 for $1.6 billion. Andreessen also co-founded Ning, a social networking company that is growing fast and generating revenue. “Marc understands technology on a deeper level than 99% of the public,” says Todd Chaffee, partner with Institutional Venture Partners.

But one other big reason that the two were able to attract so much money, a key detail that I broke in my story for BusinessWeek, was the duo gained the support of three of Silicon Valley’s most established and successful venture capital firms: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Accel Partners and Greylock Partners.

The lead partners of these three firms (Kleiner’s John Doerr, Accel’s Jim Breyer and Greylock’s Aneel Bushri) sponsored Andreessen Horowitz, say several sources. Being sponsored is sort of like being a made man in the mob. You are tapped on the shoulder and invited into an elite club.

Concretely, this means that these sponsors made personal introductions to several of their limited partner investors to help Andreessen raise money. No doubt, that sponsorship gave the investors more comfort to invest their dwindling capital with a group of first-time VCs. “Those are great anchor tenants that will give them more credibility,” says Roger Lee, partner with Battery Ventures.

In fact, there’s a long tradition of sponsorship in the venture business. Thomas J. Davis, the co-founder of Davis & Rock, one of the pioneering firms of the venture capital industry, helped Kleiner, Perkins raise money by introducing them to a few investors.

Similarly, the Mayfield Fund helped Don Valentine launch Sequoia Capital in the early 1970s. Gib Myers, one of the first partners of Mayfield, said that the firm set up Valentine with some free office space on Sand Hill Road in a building owned by Wally Davis, the co-founder of Mayfield Fund. “We helped Don get his start,” Myers told me during an interview for my book. “He and Tommy and Wally were really good friends.” Valentine repaid the favor by inviting Mayfield to invest in a little company called Atari.

Back in the early days of venture capital, sponsorship reflected the collegial milieu of what was then a cottage industry. These days, the practice is driven more by practical considerations. Venture firms occasionally help a newcomer this way to forge ties that could prove valuable later on. The new firms, for example, could give the established firms a window into a different area or the ability to get preferred access to co-invest on new deals. “You’d like to get plugged into that network,” says Robert Ackerman, co-founder of Allegis Capital, which was sponsored by AVI Capital when it got started.

More recently, in 2007, Greylock sponsored life sciences investor Third Rock Ventures, investing some of its own money and introducing the founding team to several investors.

I was not able to find out if Kleiner, Accel or Greylock invested in Andreessen Horowitz. But I would not be surprised if they did. And why not? Increasingly, big firms are looking for ways to continue investing in early stage deals without all the time and energy it requires. In March, Sequoia Capital announced a small investment in the angel fund of Y Combinator. Investing in venture funds that focus on early stage deals could give the big guys a way efficiently scale their early stage investments.

This shows what having powerful backing can do. That is the secret to why many succeed while others fail. So develop relationships with powerful brokers in your field if you want to gain an unfair advantage over your competitors.

July 5, 2009

Marc Andereesen launches $300M VC fund

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Internet, Mobile, Technology — Tags: — Raja @ 11:18 pm

Marc Andereesen, noted entrepreneur who created the Netscape browser, has announced a $300M VC fund focused on silicon valley technology companies.

andreessen-horowitz-21Marc Andreessen, the entrepreneur who co-founded the first significant Web browser Netscape at 22, is moving on to his next profession: Venture Capitalism.

Andreessen (pictured left) with his long-time business partner, Ben Horowitz (right), have raised $300 million in fresh capital to form a firm they’ve called “Andreessen Horowitz.” They’ll invest the money in a way they say is more suitable to today’s needs. They’re particularly enthusiastic about investing in Silicon Valley, saying it is unparalleled in its software prowess.

First, they’re going to spray small amounts of their first fund — checks of around $50,000 to $100,000 — into between 60 and 80 early stage companies, on the belief that a new wave of startups building with inexpensive web tools can get by with less than $500,000 in total funding over the lifetime. They’ll team with other investors, including prolific Silicon Valley angel Ron Conway to support these companies, which will be comprise mainly a few engineers with little need for guidance. (Conway is in fact an investor in Andreessen Horowitz).

Next, they’ll invest between checks of several million dollars into 12 to 15 more advanced companies, which typical for venture capital firms. This is where the two will spend most of their money, and time, taking board seats (7 or 8 each) at these companies. Such companies need more help in management and in growing a company, Andreessen said. Only the best of the very early-stage companies they back would reach this phase.

Finally, they’ll invest checks of up to $50 million into two or three “late-stage” deals, Andreessen said.

The two met at Netscape, when Andreessen hired Horowitz (left) to join as a product manager at that early browser company from Lotus. Horowitz earlier had worked at Silicon Graphics, which at the time was considered one of the hottest companies in Silicon Valley. After Netscape was sold to AOL in a $10 billion deal in 2009, the two put in some time at AOL, and then another company, called Loudcloud, which eventually morphed into a company called Opsware, and sold in 2007 to HP for $1.7 billion. Until recently, Horowitz ran HP’s software division, where he managed 4,000 people. Andreessen, meanwhile, co-founded a company called Ning, which has raised more than $100 million. He is chairman there.

Notably, Andreessen sees most of the interesting action still happening in Silicon Valley, as opposed to other areas of the world, and says they’ll focus their investments there, though “not necessarily exclusively.” The firm will be based on Sand Hill Road, home of most big-name venture firms in Silicon Valley.

Andreessen told me an interview that the two have proven themselves as founders and company builders, and see themselves as “throwbacks to how venture capital firms got started in the 1960s and 1970s,” when entrepreneurs like Don Valentine and Tom Perkins with real experience running companies launched venerable venture firms like Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins.

Andressen said they’ll invest in all of the “new” business model areas, including consumer internet, cloud computing and consumer electronics. He said they would also invest in “back-end” companies or those with less exposure to consumers, such as virtualization and cloud storage.

If you are a silicon valley based tech entrepreneur, this fund should be one of the first ones to consider. Marc and Ben add a huge amount of value and cred to your startup.

May 22, 2009

Super Angels

Filed under: Entrepreneurship — Tags: — Raja @ 9:30 am

BW has story on new kind of VC funds that are more like super angels that are taking a contrarian approach to venture investing.

null

Risk-takers: First Round’s partners Morgan, Chris Fralic, and Hayes Rudy Archuleta

 As large VC firms cut back, a hungry bunch of seed-stage investors are helping entrepreneurs get their ideas off the ground

Earlier this year, as the stock market plunged, most bankers and other financiers hoarded capital and throttled back on new deals. But not Josh Kopelman. Even in the bleakest months, the co-founder of the venture capital firm First Round Capital hustled after startups to write them checks.

Take one sunny morning in February. Kopelman sits in the San Francisco loft of First Round’s West Coast office across a table from Gary Briggs. A veteran entrepreneur, Briggs just took over as CEO at Plastic Jungle, a startup building an online marketplace where consumers can buy, sell, or trade gift cards. “There’s about $40 billion of unused gift cards on retailers’ balance sheets,” says Briggs, so focused he doesn’t touch the salad ordered in for his lunch.

Kopelman hops up to sketch on a whiteboard. He wants Briggs to describe in detail how Plastic Jungle makes money. “So you get a fee here?” Kopelman asks, drawing a thicket of lines and figures. The CEO explains that with each sale or transfer of a gift card, the company takes a commission. The VC ends the meeting by saying he wants to “kick the site’s tires” and confirm retailers’ willingness to sell cards on the site. A week later, First Round agrees to pay $1 million for an equity stake.

Even faced with a financial world aflame, Kopelman and a wave of new investors are running straight for the fire. It may be bravery or foolishness, but they’re funding startups and entrepreneurs at a time when almost everyone else is holding back. In the latest sign of conflagration, venture capital investment plummeted 61% in the first quarter, to $3 billion, the lowest level since 1997. Only $169 million of that went to companies seeking their first round of venture money, what’s known as seed-stage investments.

Kopelman thinks the problems in venture capital go beyond the recession. He says many old-line firms have gotten too big and unwieldy to build innovative companies the way they used to, and many angels, individuals who invest in startups, don’t have enough money to back most high-tech ideas. Kopelman and a band of up-and-comers are championing a different tack. They want to reinvigorate venture capital by taking it back to its roots, when firms were smaller, more nimble, and more likely to help startups get off the ground. “I don’t think a lot of people have been entrepreneurial about venture capital,” says Kopelman.

Besides First Round, these “super angels,” as they’re called in the industry, include Baseline Ventures, Maples Investments, and Felicis Ventures. They’re pushing ahead and financing startups even as big-name venture firms cut back and conserve capital until the economy improves. First Round Capital has quietly become the country’s most active seed-stage investor, outpacing such marquee names as Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. In fact, First Round bet on the online personal finance site Mint.com after Sequoia took a pass on the deal—and watched the startup blossom into a rival to Intuit (INTU). “They took a risk on a 25-year-old kid,” says Mint.com chief Aaron Patzer, who’s now 28.

Kopelman’s aggressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the accepted wisdom on Sand Hill Road, the heart of the venture business in Silicon Valley. Last fall Sequoia gave a presentation to its portfolio companies, entitled “R.I.P. Good Times,” urging them to slash spending quickly. It was a defining moment in the downturn: Many venture firms took it as a wake-up call to shut struggling startups and halt most new investments.

Kopelman could pay a steep price for moving in the opposite direction. While he has a track record of strong returns and is considered a rising star in the venture field, he has never faced the risks he does today. Not only does he confront the usual challenges of startups but he also could get tripped up by a litany of economic problems. “Investing in young companies is always risky,” says Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School. “Investing in young companies during a time of enormous economic uncertainty is particularly risky.”

February 2, 2009

Scarcity of startup capital

Filed under: Business, Entrepreneurship — Tags: , — Raja @ 10:27 pm

Angel and venture capital is essential to the startup ecosystem. Even though the cost of starting a web startup has gone down in recent years, most of these companies need venture capital to scale up to achieve sustainable growth.

Current economic downturn is predictably choking the capital blood supply to startups. The signs are every where. Venture capital funds are losing money. Angels are fleeing from startup investing.

So we are back to the post dot com crash type of investment environment. This drought may last even longer. So what does this mean for entrepreneurs.

This is the time when real entrepreneurs make their mark. This is a great time to pick the largest opportunites and shoot for the moon. There won’t be too much competition. So the road is all yours. It is like driving at 3am on an empty highway. No distractions. You know the dawn will come. You can make great ground before the dawn comes.

But there is one catch. You have to find a way to play the game. If you can then the world is yours. Well I am playing, with or without venture capital. Let’s see how much ground I can make before the dawn comes.

Powered by WordPress