Skip to content


Harbourvest Cleantech FOF Preparing for Close

Boston-based HarbourVest Partners is preparing to hold a final close on its new cleantech fund. The firm has raised $139 million in commitments to date and is waiting to hear on one or two potential commitments before holding a final close, a source familiar with the situation said.

Harbourvest launched fundraising just over a year ago with a target of $150 million and hard cap of $250 million. peHUB first flagged the fund in March 2009. The management company, called HarbourVest Cleantech Associates, was formed in April 2008. Harbourvest declined to comment.



Posted in VC. Tagged with , .

The most interesting part of Jakob’s experiment to me is…



The most interesting part of Jakob’s experiment to me is the economics of it.  It cost Jakob $0.08/reblog to run this experiment.  Yet, if you asked the average Tumblr how much you would have to pay them in order to insert a marketing post into their Tumblelog, my guess is it would be closer to $8.00, not the $0.08 in actually cost Jakob.

Turning the advertising into a game (in this case, the game metaphor is The Lottery) reduced the cost of advertising, increased good will, and got the benefit of residual posts analyzing what he did after it was completed (just like this one!).

jakelodwick:

So this little viral contest thingy is over. I originally estimated 1,000 reblogs by yesterday and it’s up to 1,219. It seems to have really caught on at the end.

There’s no deep thinking behind it — I just wanted to see what would happen, out of curiosity. If 100 people reblogged it, or 10,000 did, that says two different things about the Tumblr userbase.

The randomly selected winner is jaaaaaayr. Congratulations! Send me your address and I’ll send you a check.

(I was supposed to post this yesterday; my apologies)

Posted in VC.

Negotiating an Angel Deal: What Angels, Entrepreneurs & VCs Need to Know

I know I owe everyone a follow up to my post from last week titled The Proliferation of Standardized Seed Financing Documents.  To the many of you out there that emailed me in response, thanks for all of the thought, ideas, suggestions, and offers of help.  More on that soon.

In the mean time, I noticed today that Dow Jones is running a seminar titled Negotiating an Angel Deal: What Angels, Entrepreneurs & VCs Need to KnowMy partner Jason Mendelson is one of the panelists, along with several other notable lawyers and angel investors.  If you are interested in this particular topic, I expect there will be a “robust” discussion as I know that the opinions between a few of the folks on the panel vary pretty widely.  If you are interested, sign up here.



Posted in VC. Tagged with , , .

Newly Funded Diabetes Companies ‘Doing Well By Doing Good’

A growing focus on managing diseases more effectively to control long-term health care costs has boosted the prospects for diabetes-treatment companies, with several companies receiving significant funding rounds in recent weeks.

Monitoring diabetes is crucial because if left untreated, people with the disease can suffer from a host of severe complications, including blindness, skin infections, renal failure and nerve damage. Helping patients keep their disease under control, therefore, can translate into significant savings to the health care system down the road, investors say.

“You really are doing well by doing good,” said Edward Cahill, partner at HLM Venture Partners. “You aren’t curing diabetes, but you are preventing a very large number of complications that are crippling and costing so much to the health care system.”

One of the reasons for the increased VC interest is the sheer number of people with the disease. According to the American Diabetes Association, 23.6 million Americans have diabetes, a disease caused by the body’s inability to manage its glucose levels properly.

The new technology focuses on how to improve glucose monitoring or insulin delivery, decades-old treatments that often required multiple needle pricks or injections daily. The largest of the rounds was Intuity Medical Inc., a blood-glucose monitoring company that raised $64 million in Series D financing from Emergent Medical Partners, Investor Growth Capital, Thomas McNerney & Partners, U.S. Venture Partners and Versant Ventures.

A key factor driving interest in these companies is the increasing emphasis in preventative care as a cost-control mechanism. “One of the themes is the connection to health care and getting people out of the hospital,” said Michael Greeley, general partner at Flybridge Capital Partners, an investor in glucose monitoring company MicroChips Inc. “In terms of costs, it’s 10 cents on the dollar if you can.”  According to the American Diabetes Association, the total health care cost related to diabetes in 2007 was $174 billion in the U.S.

That prospect has investors interested in part because not only are patients likely to be motivated to keep on top of their disease to avoid serious complications, but insurers are willing to pay for diabetes monitoring and treatment to keep their own bills down.

“There is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of interested and aligned stakeholders: the patients, the payers and the clinicians,” said Charles Warden, managing director at Versant Ventures.

The challenge for companies is to make insulin pumps and glucose monitors that are accurate but that can hold up to the rigors of daily life. “This is not a typical medical device; most devices are used only by professionals under very controlled circumstances,” said Cahill of HLM. “But a pump could be used by a 12-year-old kid playing football who drops it or spills peanut butter and jelly on it.”

Companies that can make sturdy, easy-to-use devices have the chance of earning a patient’s trust for years. Warden said the ultimate measure of success is whether the device can fit easily into a busy schedule. “There is a huge appetite for managing the disease more conveniently,” he said. “The goal is to make diabetes forgettable for the patient.”

Here’s a look at other diabetes-treatment companies that VentureWire reported raised funding in recent months:

Calibra Medical Inc., Redwood City, Calif. - On the heels of securing regulatory clearance for its insulin delivery device, the company raised $9.3 million toward a potential $25 million round. Canaan Partners, Frazier Healthcare Ventures, Intersouth Partners and Three Arch Partners provided the initial funding. Skyline Ventures, the other previous backer from Calibra’s $35 million Series B in mid-2008, did not return. The company, founded in 2004, is targeting bolus, or short-term, insulin delivery through the clothing for both diabetes types. (The company doesn’t yet have a Web site.)

CeQur SA, Montreux, Switzerland - After closing its Series A round at CHF31.7 million ($30.6 million) late last year, the company said it hopes to launch in Europe and begin U.S. clinical trials on its insulin delivery device in 2010. Backers include BMC Ventures, Endeavour Vision, Orion Healthcare Equity Partners, Schroder & Co. Bank and Venture Incubator.  The company looks to develop a subcutaneous patch to prevent the need for daily injections for Type 2 patients.

Flexible Medical Systems LLC, Rockville, Md. - The company raised a $1.3 million angel round early in February as it looks to position a small monitor in dead skin cells to measure glucose through interstitial fluids. Most of the money came from Florida-based physicians.

MicroChips Inc., Bedford, Mass. - MicroChips, whose implantable microchips may one day be used to deliver drugs or detect important biochemical changes, has raised a $16.5 million later-stage financing to begin testing a continuous glucose monitor in humans. New investor InterWest Partners joined return backers Care Capital, CSK Venture Capital, Flybridge Capital Partners, Intersouth Partners, Medtronic Inc., Novartis Venture Fund, Polaris Venture Partners and Saints Capital.

Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., San Diego - The insulin pump developer raised a $52.3 million Series C round led by new investors Delphi Ventures and HLM Venture Partners. The company’s insulin pumps are designed for patients with Type 1 diabetes, although the company is keeping the details of its technology under wraps.



Posted in VC.

Single Unit Value Is More Important Than Growth

The pressure for revenue growth has hurt a lot of young companies.  It starts with an entrepreneur representing a growth story to an investor.  Then the investor represents the growth story to his firm to gain support for the investment.  And then the investment happens.  Then the company takes the investment, invests in sales and marketing, and the company grows.  Everyone is committed to growth, gets used to growth, and expects more growth in the future.

This is all well and good – if and only if – the single unit value is there, especially in mass market companies that service consumers or small/medium size businesses.  There are two aspects to single unit value: (1) single unit satisfaction and (2) single unit economics. 

Single Unit Satisfaction

The fundamental question is if you take a single customer, do they derive sufficient value from using your product or service? 

  • For a consumer social web service, maybe the key value measure is whether a user will tell two friends about it. 
  • For a SAAS company, the key value measure might be renewal. 
  • For a transactional company, the key value measure might be a repeat transaction rate. 

This is not intended to be rocket science.  Companies need to focus on a single customer, that is in their target market, and make sure they can deliver sufficient value to that customer to drive the right behaviors (referral, renewal, repeat usage).  It goes without saying, trying to build a great business on the backs of customers that don’t perceive sufficient value in your product or service is impossible. 

Single Unit Economics

The fundamental question now is if you now take that satisfied customer, can you make money based on your business model?  Companies need to fully burden the cost of servicing a single customer to understand single unit profitability.  This includes marketing, sales, cost of goods, capex, servicing, overhead, etc.  The question therein is whether that single satisfied customer is profitable given all that it costs to acquire and service them?

  • Many online video sites excelled at single unit satisfaction, but they got hammered on the economics because they didn’t generate enough ad revenue to cover  a single cost component such as bandwidth to deliver the videos. 
  • Some mass market companies that can cover sales and marketing costs, get caught up in the cost to service customers on the back-end.  The old local food delivery service, Kozmo.com had this issue. 
  • Infrastructure oriented companies, like wireless service providers, that have up front capex to deploy new customers, need to be crystal clear on lifetime value of customers – to cover capex.  Otherwise growth is in fact detrimental.
  • It goes without saying that if your selling your product for less than what it costs you – some of the early online retailers like MotherNature.com faced this.  You can’t make up negative gross margins with volume.

Sometimes the pressure for growth obscures the importance of single unit value.  In reality, there is no reason to invest for growth if the single unit value is not there.  It’s more prudent to wait, get customer satisfaction and economics nailed right, and then push for growth.  Pushing for growth prematurely at best will waste money unnecessarily, and at worst, will accelerate the demise of the company.  On the flip side, if the economics and value are there, rather than tiptoe forward on the growth plans, it’s prudent to invest aggressively for growth.  That’s when great companies are built, but it often requires patience in the early days. 

Filed under: Growth Equity, Venture Capital

Posted in VC. Tagged with , .

Formal HCI Training (and It’s Holes)

While at undergrad, I took a bunch of classes that taught Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) as a formal discipline.  We read all the relevant texts from Don Norman and Jakob Nielsen.  The intro class in the series was taught by an industry leader, Terry Winograd.  The text for that class was terrific, and I still keep it on my bookshelf at work: Interaction Design by Helen Sharp, Yvonne Rogers & Jenny Preece. We attended events like SIGCHI, and the coursework was a good blend of both theory and practicum.

After my undergrad training I feel confident in my ability to analyze design for both Usability (How quickly and efficiently is the usage?) and User Experience (Is the design fun and engaging?). It was absolutely a valuable experience, but it’s remarkable how many core principles are violated regularly by the world’s best designers… and how they are better because of their violations.

For example the number one rule in interaction design is Don’t Design For Yourself. Our interaction design professors would say you must always design for your target users, and iterate your design with end-user feedback.  But, some of the best designed products regularly violate this rule. There are many interviews with the founders of products like Twitter, del.icio.us, Tumblr, Mint, Foursquare, etc where the founders say they were trying to build something they wanted for themselves. Of course they wanted others to use it too, but the initial design for always for user #1: the founders. It’s a violation of “Don’t Design for Yourself” and it worked amazingly well.

Another example: interaction design emphasizes small iterative changes intermixed with a user testing feedback loop at all stages. That way you have experimental evidence to confirm (or invalidate) the hypothesis behind your design decisions, and you’re not just operating blindly.  For some successful products, this works amazingly well. For example, Mark Pincus of Zynga in every interview he’s done in the last year can’t stop singing the praises of constant, cheap, iterative testing.

But, sometimes the next killer app is so radically different, it could never come from this type of quick, iterative, user-testing-driven design process. VisiCalc (the first electronic WYSIWYG spreadsheet program) was so fundamentally different from prior spreadsheet approaches that no user could have asked for it before they had seen it in action. The classic Henry Ford quote is very appropriate here too, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

So, while I’m grateful for my formal HCI training, and I’m confident I’ll use it throughout the rest of my life, I think many of the lessons I learned in that program need to be taken with a grain of salt and readily violated when there is good reason to do so.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Posted in VC. Tagged with , , .

Inside One Very Private Equity Firm

Centerbridge Partners is one of those private equity firms that takes the “private” part just as seriously as the “equity” part. The New York firm’s partners rarely comment in the media, and even Centerbridge’s website is password protected. The radio silence is likely related to the volatile nature of Centerbridge’s deals. The distressed debt-buyout hybrid fund has become embroiled in some contentious bankruptcy proceedings, including last year’s CIT drama.

But Centerbridge is in the market with its second fund, and nothing draws a buyout pro out of media exile like fundraising. Yesterday Jeffrey Aronson, a founding partner, pulled back the curtain at the DBR Restructuring & Turnaround Summit in New York, discussing a “W-shaped” default cycle, sour grapes over CIT and long hold times.

Here are some highlights:

Aronson believes this default cycle will have a long tail. Buyouts firms were able to refinance much of their debt last year, but not all of the half-trillion dollars of LBO debt maturing between 2011 and 2015 will be repaid. Centerbridge is expecting the default rate to look like a “W,” meaning after the early 2009 spike and second-half decline, defaults will rise again, possibly to an even higher level.

  • The “Golden Age” for distressed investing has passed for coattail riders, but not for disciplined, experienced investors, he said. “Last year anyone could have bought something, all you needed was some courage,” he said. “That’s not the case today, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to do.” Good distressed plays are harder to find, and the easy money is over, he said.
  • Centerbridge is interested in businesses that are in a cyclical decline, but not a secular decline. Apparently that means Centerbridge believes auto parts is not experiencing secular decline, since the firm owns a stake in Dana Corp.
  • The firm believes it’s differentiated because its founding partners matched their backgrounds in distressed debt (Angelo Gordon) and operational private equity (Blackstone Group). The firm has a sophisticated understanding of markets and trading, which foreign to traditional buyout firms, Aronson said. For that reason, Centerbridge stays invested in its companies longer than most distressed debt investors. That’s true with CIT, where the firm plans to remain an investor for some time, Aronson said.
  • Centerbridge is the four largest equity holder in CIT, and it hasn’t sold any of its stock since the restructuring was completed. He said that even though some bondholders had “sour grapes” over the deal’s pricing, the key to Centerbridge was not the pricing as much as it was attractive covenants placing Centerbridge in the driver’s seat through CIT’s restructuring.
  • Centerbridge had gathered $467 million toward its second fund as of last July. The vehicle has no set target, according to an SEC filing, but it follows a $3.2 billion debut fund, raised in 2006. Park Hill is its placement agent.

Sidenote: Steve Rattner also spoke at the conference about his experience as President Obama’s car czar. He naturally shot down my series of questions on Quadrangle, Loglisci, and the pay-to-play scandal. He also didn’t give any hints as to his future plans (he’s currently enjoying funemployment, it seems). As Dan reported yesterday, Rattner and Quadrangle are still under investigation by Andrew Cuomo for involvement in the scandal that never dies. You can read about that and David Loglisci’s guilty plea here.



Posted in VC. Tagged with , .

The Daily Start-Up: Battery’s Premium Fee Not Included

This morning’s roundup of the latest venture capital news and analysis across the Web:

dailystartup_D_20090806101628.jpgArt by Mike Lucas

Battery Ventures has raised one of the largest venture capital funds this year, closing its ninth fund at its target of $750 million. But there’s something else newsworthy here. VentureWire reports that Battery is the latest firm to lower its premium carried interest rate - the portion of profits that a VC fund takes when a portfolio company is sold or goes public - from 25% to the more standard 20%. Tom Crotty, managing general partner of the Waltham, Mass.-based firm tells VentureWire: “None of us in the industry have provided good enough returns in the last decade to be able to look people in the eye and say we deserve premium terms.” Battery also decided to forgo a $250 million contingency side fund because limited partners weren’t interested….

Software company CA Inc. continued its shopping spree of venture-backed companies, snapping up Nimsoft Inc. for $350 million. That means quick returns for Goldman Sachs, JMI Equity and Northzone Ventures, which invested about $22 million over two rounds in 2007 and 2008 (Goldman joined the syndicate in the second round.) It’s at least the fourth venture-backed company CA has agreed to buy since June….

On Monday VentureWire exclusively reported that Oak Investment Partners has rounded up around $700 million to $750 million for its 13th venture fund, which is targeting $1.5 billion. VentureBeat follows up with a look at the Washington State Investment Board, a longtime investor in Oak that committed $30 million to the new fund before deciding to pull out of venture capital all together….

Note to start-ups developing vitamins, vision or beauty products: Drugstore.com is on the prowl for such companies and will consider paying $40 million to $60 million each, the CEO tells Bloomberg BusinessWeek. In December, Drugstore.com agreed to pay $36 million for skin-care products seller SkinStore.com, which raised capital from Atlas Venture, El Dorado Ventures, MDS Capital and others. But the business better be performing before Drugstore.com comes a-knockin’; at the time of the Salu by, CFO Tracy Wright told VentureWire: “We really wanted to focus on a company that had either demonstrated profitability, or was very close it. We didn’t want to take on a business that was still struggling to be profitable.” Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which invested in Drugstore.com in the 1990s, still has a small stake in the company….

Patrick Pohlen, a partner at law firm Latham & Watkins LLP who represented OpenTable in its IPO, talks to TheDeal.com about the prospects for tech M&A, warning that private companies may have an inflated sense of their worth:



Posted in VC.

Smiles are viral

Umair Haque, the author of Black Swan, has written a wonderful piece where he looks at the issues around the initial release of GOOGLE Buzz and draws some conclusions.

Here’s some snippets and comments:

1. Today’s services (I think he means web) are built to ‘fail fast and cheap’. In many was today’s web companies are as ‘disposable’ as razors; their applications can be built inexpensively, using freelance talent and rented infrastructure. If traffic comes, then the entrepreneurs have a company, if not, then…well, next.

2. I think the rise of social based applications is leading a resurgence of best of breed applications; not burdened by a melange of features that force design compromises that result in the type of mediocre products we see in so many desktop and server based applications. Stable computing environments inexorably lead down the integrated path (e.g. the desktop) where, best of breed companies, have been decimated by ‘integrated’ solutions. It will be interesting to watch the rapid evolution of Facebook as they seem to be on a the vertical integration path. Google, which at one time, disparaged such activities, has been singed with the Buzz integration with Gmail. Let’s see how long it takes them to be tempted by the ‘leverage’ temptress. Perhaps, having such a great depth of integration opportunities is what’s hindered MSFT from being a great web company.

3. ‘Thin value is not sustaining’- You get to this thought by clicking through to a previous post describing how phone operators make hundreds of millions of dollars by forcing 15 second greetings on mobile phones. It’s a feature purely designed to make money while pissing off customers royally. Therefore, it’s not sustainable and the profits become an equity destroying habit that creates an umbrella for disruptive competitors. ‘Thick value’ the type of utility or experience you can’t get elsewhere that saves you time, money, or is just plain fun is the heart of just about any successful company. A couple, or a singular thing really matters to your site visitor (I really try to stay away from the drug induced term ‘user’). Get it right by maximizing their utility. Smiles are incredibly viral

4. Be generous in your product design- Don’t hesitate to give value to your visitors, even if that value is used beyond your site. Let them use their data or ‘connections’ elsewhere. I see this royally today in the adoption of Facebook Connect.

5. Simplify- It wasn’t so long ago that printing companies measured their instructional manuals in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Today, we have the ‘8 second rule’. If a site can’t engage my daughter in 8 seconds, she’s gone.

Posted in VC. Tagged with , , .

VC Governance FAQ: (4) How do you manage risk when backing serial entrepreneurs?

images-7This is the fourth in our series of ten frequently asked questions from investors in venture capital partnerships.

Susan Mangiero, CEO of Investment Governance’s Fiduciary X, asked me the following:

Question: Are there ways to mitigate the team risk when in fact VC funds often back a particular team or particular CEO?

Answer: When we back serial entrepreneurs, it is critical to assess where they are today in their lifetime achievement and performance potential curve.  By that, I am reminded of the fundamental risk in looking at track records—“past performance is not indicative of future returns.”  It amazes me how many investors chase performance and don’t pay attention to the current team composition at the VC manager, to the current dynamics of the partnership.  Ideally you want to back a proven winner who is still hungry enough to deserve a seat at the table.  Venture capital is totally a hits- driven business, but there are very few hitters, either VCs or entrepreneurs– who are able to hit multiple home runs.  When you look at VC’s, you want to find VC’s who are magnets for great entrepreneurs, whether they are first timers or veterans, and rely on the VCs’ pattern recognition ability to make that judgment call in picking a winner.  One way to mitigate risk is to assess how deep the team is in the VC organization—remember that you are making a 10 year bet on a team, and few teams stay together through an entire cycle.questionnaire

Posted in VC. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .