martes, 11 de marzo de 2014

The dark side of venture capital: Five things startups need to know

By                                                               March 10, 2014, 5:34 AM PST
Venture capital funding is a great tool for entrepreneurs, but its implications are often not fully understood. Here's what VC-seekers need to know. 
evilbankmoney.jpg
Image: iStockphoto/darak77
Nearly $27 billion dollars was invested by venture capitalists in 2012. That $27 billion was invested across 3,723 deals, making the average deal hover at a little over $7 million.
While that number may seem staggering to many people, it's about average for VC investments made since the dot com bubble burst between 2000 and 2001, according to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Yes, the economic impact of the dot com bubble was horrendous, but it did spawn a renewed sense of innovation in startup development.
Companies are running leaner than ever, and because of that VCs are more willing to invest in companies who don't pride themselves on their burn rate. Still, raising venture capital funding can be a risky business if you aren't realistic about what to expect.
Here are some things to think about if you are considering raising your first round.

1. Statistically, you will fail

The venture capital investment process is a complicated one and potential companies are vetted thoroughly before they are committed to. With that being said, just because your company is backed by a major VC you aren't guaranteed success.
Think about those 3,723 deals that happened in 2012. In that same year there were only 49 IPOs and 449 mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals. Granted, those exits came from companies that were invested in probably a decade ago, it is still an interesting ratio to consider.
Micah Rosenbloom, a venture partner at Founders Collective, said that historically, only one out of every 10 companies that a firm invests in with a given fund will be successful. That's not to say that all of the remaining companies will fail, though. According to Tomasz Tunguz, a partner at Redpoint Ventures, "Typical portfolio company failure rates across the industry defined as either shutdowns or returning capital are roughly 40%-50%."
This isn't to discourage hopeful founders that are seeking capital, but to ground your expectations in reality. Besides, entrepreneurship is about having the courage to fail, right? The fact that you are more likely to fail is a fact of life for venture-backed companies, it is not an expectation for the VCs making the investment.
"You never invest in a company thinking that it will fail," Tunguz said.
A VC investment in your company does not guarantee success, but it does mean you have someone in your corner who believes you have what it takes to make this thing work. Once you have a VC in your corner, you have to make sure you are in sync on what it will take to make this a worthy investment. More importantly, you have to know how long it will take for this investment to pay off.

2. There is a timeframe for ROI

"Typical venture funds are structured as 10 year commitments for the limited partners who invest in the fund," Tunguz said.
Venture capital firms are ten-year vehicles for investors, but that doesn't mean that all companies will be ten years old when they return on the investment. Rosenbloom mentioned that initial investments are made in the first three years. After the portfolio has been establish, a firm will typically make follow-on investments over the remainder of the fund's lifecycle.
Ten years may sounds like a long time, but you have to consider how long companies like Coca-Cola have been around (since 1892) and some companies that were started in the 2000s have a comparable valuation to Coke. Founders Collective is usually the first institutional round in a company, and Rosenbloom said that they aren't looking for the next cool invention.
"As a venture capital firm, we are not in the business of funding inventors or inventions, we are in the business of funding fast-growing companies," Rosenbloom said.
Considering the first three years as initial investments, a company could only have seven years to "make it." Some VCs, like Rosenbloom, consider seven years the average age for ROI, and the data from NVCA supports that claim.
The NVCA reported in their 2013 Yearbook that, of the 49 IPOs that happened in 2012, the median age for IPO was 7 years old and the mean age for a company to IPO was 8 years old. While some have argued that it is taking longer for startups to mature, Tunguz argues, "The gestation period will likely fall some because of the tremendous exit activity in M&A and IPOs in the last 24 months."
To help you make it through the whirlwind of growth that can happen after an investment, you have to know how much capital you need and when you need it.

3. You can take too much funding

"All too often, entrepreneurs will think of raising a Series A round from a reputable VC as the end goal and don't think they can be successful unless they do so. So they reprioritize raising capital over building a valuable product or service and usually end up asking for too much money too soon which ends up in a failed fundraising attempt or a raise on bad terms for the entrepreneur," said Hrach Simonian, a principal at Canaan Partners.
As I mentioned in a previous article, knowing how much money you need can make all the difference in your venture capital experience. It starts by understanding how much money you need and only raising that much money. Raising too much money can force entrepreneurs to make decisions they aren't ready to make.
"If you raise too much money, you have to swing for the fences," Rosenbloom said.
You want the amount of money you raise to coincide with the benchmark you are trying to hit. If you don't have a specific benchmark in mind (which you really should), a good rule of thumb is to consider the amount of capital it takes to sustain your operations for 18 months, then add 25-50 percent for added flexibility and seek to raise that amount of money.
Tunguz said that raising too much capital is far from the gravest sin to be committed by an entrepreneur, "But having a huge sum of money in the bank can entice founders to dramatically increasing burn rate or diffuse the company's energy among many projects. It can be challenging to maintain the same execution discipline created by the scarcity of capital when the bank account is overflowing."
Another risk of raising too much capital is setting the bar too high for your exit. By doing so you will run the risk of not being able to grow into the expectation that was set by raising a large amount of money.
Remember to raise enough to get yourself to the next stage where you can assess whether or not you need to raise more money. Keep in mind that once you choose a firm and raise those funds, that VC will probably get a permanent seat on your board of advisors. Choose carefully, because you are usually stuck with that investor for good.

4. You can't fire your VC

Too many founders abdicate their due diligence when it comes to the firms they end up pitching. Each venture capital firm has its own general focus on specific sectors or verticals. Taking that to a more granular scale, each partner within each specific firm maintains investments in a focused area of expertise.
Founders typically don't appreciate the incentive structure on the side of the fund, which is based on the size and the dynamics of that fund. Understand how the fund makes money to determine if it is a good fit for you. The size of the fund will be a good determinant for whether or not your company will present a quality investment opportunity for the partners.
You have to think of your VC firm as another partner in your business.  This leads to one of the single most important aspects of your startup/VC relationship: Make sure your goals for your company line up with your VC's goals for his or her investment. By aligning your goals with those of your VC, you can help potentially avoid a disaster scenario.  
"The disaster scenario is that the founding team wants to do something different than the board," Tunguz said.  
The risk/reward curves are different for entrepreneurs than they are for VCs, and board members (including your VC) have a legal responsibility to take into account the goals of the investors. So, if your company is losing steam and an acquisition opportunity comes along that is in the best interest of your investors, they might push you to take it, even if it means you don't get paid.
But, of course, you can avoid all that potential heartache by not taking funding to begin with.

5. Failure isn't death

Micah Rosenbloom describes venture capital as jet fuel. If you want to drive somewhere 100 miles away, you'll probably drive there. If you want to get from New York to Los Angeles, you're going to have to fly, and you will need fuel to power that jet.
Venture capital gives you potential—the potential for major success and the potential to fail spectacularly. The good news here—the gospel of venture capital if you will—is that failure is not the end of the story if you play your cards right. Despite stereotypes, most VCs are actually looking to build relationships with entrepreneurs, not just make money off of them.
"The Valley is small, and life is long," Tunguz said.
According to Tunguz, when it comes to his work at Redpoint Venture, great relationships are the motivation, because even if you fail it's not the end of the world. What is much more important is how you fail and how transparent you are throughout the process. If you keep people informed when you hit a snag and ask for help with a problem, you can build trust with your investors.  
Venture capital investors want to know that you will be a good steward of the funds they placed under your control. If you can prove yourself a highly competent entrepreneur and someone who will push as hard as they can to make an idea work, failure will not mean the end of your career as an entrepreneur. At that point, even if you fail, past investors and people involved with your company will be far more likely to fund your next project if they trust the way you work.
As an entrepreneur, burning bridges is unwise. Treat people with respect to build social capital, but don't see them as just a resource either. Other than that, always remember that if you're going to fail, fail big and go down swinging.  
Conner Forrest is a Staff Writer for TechRepublic. He covers Google and startups and is passionate about the convergence of technology and culture.

jueves, 27 de febrero de 2014

Wireless Spectrum: Part of our daily lives


Public Knowledge Logo
Wireless Spectrum: How You Use It and Why You Might Lose It.
Dear Dr. F. Dominguez,  

You may not think about it, but wireless spectrum is a central part of our daily lives . So much that we forget how much we depend on it. It's not just smartphones and tablets that use wireless spectrum - its our baby monitors, cordless phones, security systems, and thousands of other gadgets and tools that need shared - or unlicensed - spectrum to deliver their vital services at an affordable price.          

It's incredibly important to find new opportunities for more unlicensed spectrum to grow the wireless economy, promote innovation, and keep everyone connected to the Internet in an affordable way. One of the most promising new technologies uses the empty spaces between television channels, the so-called "TV white spaces" (TVWS).   

In the few short years since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved use of the TVWS, companies have built and shipped equipment to bring needed broadband to rural communities, creating jobs and expanding opportunities.     

Now we are in danger of losing these shared airwaves to a select few corporations. 
The FCC has historically reserved a small amount of shared unlicensed spectrum, while auctioning off the rest for privately licensed use. Now we're faced with an upcoming auction in early 2015 and the FCC hopes to reclaim the TV white spaces and sell them to private telecom companies.   

Tell the FCC to protect our airwaves during the upcoming spectrum auction and save some spectrum for the public good!

Take a minute to watch our video: Wireless Spectrum: How You Use It and Why You Might Lose It.    Video:  

 Video
 Thanks for your support, 
The Public Knowledge Team

 Tweet This: RT @publicknowledge: Tell the FCC to save enough spectrum for the public!  bit.ly/SaveSpectrum



viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014

Una muerte enn una Fábrica de Florida nos recuerda por qué existen regulaciones...(BusinessWeek)

A Florida Factory Death Reminds Us Why Regulations Exist

miércoles, 19 de febrero de 2014

Obamacare impulsa a los pequeños negocios que comienzan enfocados a la salud


Obamacare Gives Boost to Startups Focused on Health Care for Poor


Bay Area dermatologist David Wong can’t forget a patient he met during a trip to California’s Central Valley in 2009: a farmworker with a bleeding lesion on his right forearm who died within six months of Wong’s diagnosis of metastatic melanoma. The man lived less than two hours from San Francisco, and Wong says he was appalled by the “marked difference in the access to care as well as the quality of care patients were receiving.”
That experience led Wong and a fellow dermatologist to launch an online clinic in 2010. Direct Dermatology uses photos patients upload to diagnose growths, rashes, and other skin problems, usually in less than a day and at what Wong says is about half the cost of a regular doctor visit. The Palo Alto business, which has nine employees and a network of 20 dermatologists, has performed more than 10,000 consultations. Its services are covered by Medicaid and some private insurers.
Wong is one of a “huge, huge number of entrepreneurs working in health-care IT and services who really want” to improve services for poor, uninsured, and Medicaid patients, says Margaret Laws, director of the California HealthCare Foundation’s Innovations for the Underserved program. Few venture capital firms have shown interest in funding these types of startups, so donors are helping to fill the gap with grants, loans, and equity investments. Direct Dermatology got just over $1.2 million in 2012-13 from the California HealthCare Foundation and the Kresge Foundation in the form of convertible debt.
Businesses and nonprofits seeking to improve health care for the poor received more than $81 million in debt and equity investments from foundations in 2012, according to a December 2013 report from California HealthCare, which is dedicated to improving access to care. Although there is no historical data on this type of funding, Law believes the numbers are going up, propelled by the Affordable Care Act’s goal of insuring all Americans. The Obama administration is projecting that in 2014 more than 19 million people will join Medicaid, the national health-care program for the poor, now that 25 states, plus the District of Columbia, are expanding eligibility criteria for the program.
Before Obamacare, hospitals and clinics resisted incorporating entrepreneurs’ new products into their systems, says Veenu Aulakh, executive director of the Center for Care Innovations, a San Francisco nonprofit that acts as an intermediary between health-care providers and startups. There’s “now a sense of urgency” about adopting innovations that make them more efficient, she says.
Sims Preston, chief executive officer of Morrisville (N.C.) startup Polyglot Systems, says the 2010 health-care law has helped his four-year-old company sign up more than 300 pharmacies, 200 clinics, and a handful of hospitals as customers. Polyglot’s software, available in 18 languages, prints instructions for taking medicine in formats that patients with low literacy levels can understand. The shift to reimbursing for quality of care, rather than quantity of care, “means the mission that we’ve been on now has a business case to support it beyond simply the moral case,” says Preston, whose company has received about $2 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Propeller Health, a four-year-old startup in Madison, Wis., that makes hardware and software to help sufferers of asthma and other respiratory diseases manage their conditions, is also partially backed by California HealthCare. Asthma attacks are a leading cause of emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the U.S., where 25 million people—many of them children in low-income families—are afflicted, according to the American Lung Association. The 22-person business received a second investment of mostly convertible debt from California HealthCare in June, for a total of just over $1 million from the foundation. Propeller Health co-founder and CEO David Van Sickle says the increase in demand for technology like his is linked to the Affordable Care Act’s efficiency push. Insurance companies are willing to pay for Propeller’s product because it reduces trips to emergency rooms, producing “savings of between $700 to $1,000 per patient, per year,” he says.
Purple Binder, a four-person Chicago startup that helps health-care workers find community services for patients, also credits Obamacare with making its online tools more compelling: “As health-care providers take on more risk, they need to leverage existing resources to keep their patients healthy,” says Joseph Flesh, the company’s co-founder and president. For instance, using Purple Binder, a pediatrician can connect a needy mother with a local church that’s handing out diapers. The startup makes money by selling subscriptions to providers and through paid listings on its site.
New York-based business accelerator StartUp Health is using a $500,000 grant it received in December from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to advise entrepreneurs around the world on how to build businesses that improve access for the poor. “If we’re really going to solve the big challenges in health care, we have to focus on bringing innovation to the underserved communities” that make up a large percentage of medical spending in the U.S., says Unity Stoakes, president and co-founder of StartUp Health. “It’s not just a market that needs to be served. There is a real business opportunity.”
That’s why Direct Dermatology’s Wong is confident he’ll eventually be able to raise money from venture capital firms and strategic investors such as health insurers for expansion plans that include hiring at least six more employees this year. “There’s a lot of financial incentive for adoption of solutions like ours,” says Wong, prompting “interest not only from foundations but from traditional investors.”
The bottom line: As Obamacare expands insurance rolls, startups targeting the poor are attracting more funding.
Nick-leiber_75x75
Leiber is Small Business editor for Businessweek.com, Entrepreneurs editor for Bloomberg.com, and covers small business for Bloomberg Businessweek.

miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014

Plan del Senado para Matar la Administración de Pequeños Negocios (BusinessWeek)

Policy

Explaining the Senate Plan to Kill the Small Business Administration

Burr talking to the media on Capitol Hill

Photograph by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Burr talking to the media on Capitol Hill

Last month, Senator Richard Burr, (R-N.C.) introduced a bill that would combine the U.S. Commerce and Labor departments and eliminate the Small Business Administration as a stand-alone agency. Under other circumstances, a proposal to pare government by a Republican lawmaker might seem like political grandstanding, at least while a Democrat sits in the White House. But Burr’s proposal has been getting good circulation in small business advocacy circles, perhaps because it bears similarities to a plan floated by President Obama in 2012 to combine overlapping agencies. Here’s what to know about the bill.
Why would anyone want to get rid of the Small Business Administration?
The bill appears to be driven by the goal of eliminating duplicate efforts by the Commerce and Labor departments. Burr isn’t proposing to kill the SBA but to transform it from a stand-alone agency into an arm of a newly created Department of Commerce and the Workforce. In that scenario, the head of the SBA would be an undersecretary, according to an organizational chart (PDF) on Burr’s website. Presumably, the SBA would continue to perform its core function of guaranteeingsmall business loans from within the Commerce-Labor hybrid. Streamlining programs in other areas—exporting, for instance—in which multiple agencies provide similar support could help small businesses by making government bureaucracy easier to navigate.
So they don’t want to kill the SBA. How is trading a cabinet level administrator for an undersecretary a good deal for small business?
Good point. National Small Business Association President Todd McCracken toldInc. that having an SBA chief who can speak on behalf of small business owners’ interests is a key benefit of having a stand-alone organization. A Burr spokesman told McClatchy that putting an undersecretary in charge would actually elevate the SBA within the executive branch. That makes the SBA’s current acting administrator, Jeanne Hulit, sound like a big fish in a small ocean.
So it might be better if the SBA boss were a smaller fish in a more powerful organization?
That’s the argument. By the way, did you know the Commerce Department housed the National Aquarium for decades?
How are other advocacy groups reacting?
Consolidation would create additional layers of red tape for the SBA’s loan programs, says Beth Solomon, chief executive officer of the National Association of Development Companies, an umbrella organization for SBA lenders. That could undo gains in small business lending made during the Obama administration.
The National Federation of Independent Business hasn’t taken a position on reorganization but would like to see the SBA’s Office of Advocacy preserved. That’s because Advocacy has the power to prevent new federal regulations that overburden small business under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, spokeswoman Jean Card says in an e-mail.
What do the politicians say?
Neither Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who chairs the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, nor Sam Graves (R-Mo.), who heads the House Committee on Small Business, responded to requests for comment. The matter is complicated by speculation that Landrieu could soon be named chair of the Senate’s energy committee, creating a vacancy.
A more important question: Why would Obama let a Republican senator take credit for consolidation? Landrieu and fellow Democratic committee members Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) are up for reelection, and folding the SBA is unlikely to help any of their campaigns. That’s to say nothing of the lesser political squabbles over just what inefficiencies would be streamlined.
You ’re not making it sound very likely to happen. Why are people talking about it?
Eliminating or deemphasizing the SBA can be a tough political sell, as President Ronald Reagan discovered from a failed attempt to shutter the agency. Burr’s plan is getting attention now for two big reasons: Obama proposed merging the SBA with the Commerce Department and several other agencies back in 2012. That gives Burr’s proposal a bipartisan feel, even though its cosponsors are all Republicans. Beyond that, it’s worth noting that Obama has yet to nominate a successor to Karen Mills, who announced her resignation last February and left the administration in August for a role at Harvard University. As long as the SBA is led by an acting chief, there will be speculation in some quarters that its days as a stand-alone agency are limited.
So if Obama were to nominate someone, talk about getting rid of the SBA would go away?
Probably. The White House hasn’t responded to a request for comment on the search for a new SBA chief.
Clark is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek covering small business and entrepreneurship.

viernes, 10 de enero de 2014

Consejos que los Pequeños Negocios quizás ignoren...(BusinessWeek)

2014

New Year's Advice Small Business Can Ignore

The dawning of the New Year is an advice maven’s favorite time. The Internet is awash with helpful tips for small business owners. What should Main Street make of the annual flood of articles prescribing New Year’s resolutions to small business owners? Here’s some, er, advice.
It’s hard to go wrong with the easily achievable resolutions offered by the National Federation of Independent Business, which suggest that the New Year is a good time for routine maintenance. It shouldn’t take much time to make sure insurance coverage, corporate records, or employee documents are up to date. You might as well schedule a dental cleaning and get an oil change while you’re at it.
Meanwhile, it’s a good idea to rethink your website, or conduct a cybersecurity audit, but keep perspective. You won’t suddenly have more time to increase your social media presence when the calendar turns. It’s worth noting that many of the experts dispensing resolutions at this time of year are entrepreneurs hoping to promote their services. And research has shown that January is actually the worst month to try to change your behavior. (You’d be better off in August.)
The point isn’t to ignore the need to work on your business, but that there’s no reason to turn your resolutions into a list of tasks you don’t have time or money to complete. Along those lines, the Shreveport Times has a nice piece on 10 local business owners. Not one resolved to figure out mobile payments, or to use data to better understand their business.
Instead, they used the call for resolutions to reaffirm customer-friendly values. Eddie Brumfield, who owns computer troubleshooting business Jace Consulting, offered an idea that should resonate with business owners everywhere: “Operate with a lot of integrity, treat people right and keep my prices reasonable.”
Clark is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek covering small business and entrepreneurship.

Small Businesses Weigh Sending Sick Workers to Obamacare Exchanges (BusinessWeek)


Small Businesses Weigh Sending Sick Workers to Obamacare Exchanges


Can an employer pay chronically ill workers to leave the company health plan and get insurance somewhere else? That’s a question some business owners are asking, now that no one can be turned away from individual health plans under Obamacare.
The potential loophole in the Affordable Care Act could threaten the viability of Obamacare marketplaces if they get the most expensive-to-insure workers while companies keep healthier employees on their own plans. Some mid-sized companies that self-insure—that is, they pay the cost of employees’ medical claims directly—are at least talking about the idea.
“A handful of our clients, mostly in the 100- to 1,000-employee self-insurance market, have independently inquired about this and sought out legal counsel on the question,” says Richard E. Twietmeyer, executive vice president in charge of employee benefits at M3, a Madison (Wisc.)-based insurance brokerage. “It’s not something I’m suggesting.”
One possible roadblock: Such a practice may be illegal, and it might leave business owners open to employment discrimination claims, says John L. Barlament, an attorney at the law firm of Quarles & Brady in Milwaukee. Nevertheless, he says he has had “multiple conversations” with business owners and insurance brokers interested in pursuing this option.
The Affordable Care Act prompted predictions that many employers would drop coverage entirely and send all their workers to the exchanges. That hasn’t happened yet. If companies shift only their sickest employees into marketplace coverage, the practice could damage the marketplaces, which depend on premiums from younger, healthier participants to help cover the costs of older, sicker members. “I don’t believe the architects of the ACA set out for this to happen,” Twietmeyer says. “If employer groups have the opportunity to carve out high-cost claimants, that would accelerate the death spiral of the exchanges, because they won’t be able to balance the risk.”
There were “anti-dumping” provisions in the Affordable Care Act that prohibited employers from pushing sick employees into high-risk insurance pools that were created to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions until exchange coverage became available this year. But those provisions were not carried through into the rules governing exchange coverage. “It’s almost like they forgot to include that clause on the exchange side of the equation,” Barlament says.
A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is running the federal marketplace, pointed to an existing law that governs employer health-care and pension benefits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. While that law does bar employers from discriminating in how they offer workers benefits, it doesn’t address a situation in which an employee and an employer come to an agreement that the worker voluntarily decline coverage in favor of a better deal on the exchanges, subsidized with a cash benefit from the employer.
The fact that companies are even savvy enough to ask about this possibility reflects how much executives have grappled with the rising costs of medical insurance over the past decade, Twietmeyer says.
Many of his clients are family-owned manufacturing companies in the Midwest whose employee benefit costs are now second only to salaries as the biggest expense. Because it can be cheaper, about 65 percent of them opt to self-insure. This means they set aside funds to pay their employees’ medical costs directly, rather than buy a group policy from a large insurance company.
The detailed data on employee health claims that they get by self-insuring has prompted many of them to adopt wellness policies and take additional steps to drive down costs, Twietmeyer says. “When you’re self-insured, you get a look at a thorough spectrum of what is driving the cost factors for your business,” he says.
Employees with chronic conditions such as hemophilia, or those who develop serious illnesses like cancer, can cost a self-insured company a great deal annually and make them less attractive when they are shopping for “stop-loss” policies, he says. Those policies are typically used to backstop self-insured businesses; they pay the employer if workers’ health costs hit a certain level.
Darrell Moon, chief executive of Orriant, a Salt Lake City-based business that advises companies on how to cut their health-care costs, says clients haven’t asked him about shifting their most costly employees to the exchanges. “To say you would pay them to not even get their insurance through you—that’s kind of scary because it smacks of discrimination,” Moon says. “You’d have to have a pretty good attorney to pull that off.”
It is not clear that any businesses have done this yet, but Barlament says he has advised clients who are willing to take the risk that they should make sure their employees will receive better coverage on the marketplaces than they would on the job.
The idea would be to offer employees incentives for declining company coverage, not to force them off the company plan or penalize them for staying on it, both actions that would violate established law. He says he “wouldn’t be shocked at all” if some employers try it next year. “Once [the Obamacare marketplaces] really get rolling, I could definitely see this happening in 2015.”
Karen_klein
Klein is a Los Angeles-based writer who covers entrepreneurship and small-business issues.