Rafe's Radar

Read all 'venture' posts in Rafe's Radar
December 22, 2009 4:00 AM PST

Valley VC learns to embrace government

by Rafe Needleman
  • 1 comment

This is the fifth in a series of profiles that look at how the tech industry is working with the federal government.

"We joke about the Internet routing around bad government," venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson said when I asked him about launching and running companies that have to make nice with Uncle Sam.

Jurvetson, a managing director at Draper Fisher Jurvetson, made his first big venture capital score by putting money into Hotmail. He also invested in Skype. Of these early investments, he said, "They fell outside the realm of regulatory friction."

But times have changed for Jurvetson. He's investing in electric cars (Tesla, Revo), space travel (SpaceX) and biotechnology (Synthetic Genomics). Learning to deal with government is now a job skill. "For groups like us who moved from pure IT to energy and clean tech, it's inevitable."

Steve Jurvetson of VC firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson.

(Credit: Rafe Needleman/CNET)

Nonetheless, DFJ does not invest based on prevailing political winds. In fact, Jurvetson said, they have "trepidation" if a business they're considering depends in any way on government largesse such as consumer rebates or tax credits. So the company will look at solar power investments, for example, but the company has to look like it can make a go of it without the government's help.

Cases in point: DFJ's investments in solar energy companies SolarCity and Solar Junction are based on the companies' balance sheets working without government credits or rebates.

But when policies shift and money comes the way of its start-ups, "we don't scoff at it," said Jurvetson. DFJ doesn't make bets based purely on where today's dollars are flowing, but Jurvetson does note that a large-scale governmental balancing act seems to reinforce good businesses even when the economy overall takes a hit. "We might not have predicted the financial crisis," he said, "but as some sources of money dried up, the Obama dollars flowed, and filled in some of the cracks."

Other industrial investments are also turning out to be politically charged. The electric car company Tesla, in which DFJ invested, received $465 million in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy. The company has promised to locate its manufacturing plants in the U.S., which has turned out to be politically astute: The real political engagement comes at the state and local levels from municipalities that want the plants in their backyards. California, where Tesla is located, is letting the company acquire $320 million worth of manufacturing equipment without paying state sales taxes.

At Tesla, the decision to be an American company is an ongoing one. The company's vice president of business development, Diarmuid O'Connell, said, "Even beyond creating American jobs for American workers, the most compelling business reason for Tesla to build products in the USA is that doing so enables a tight feedback loop between manufacturing and R&D. When you have engineers who can talk directly to assemblers, you shrink product cycles and ensure continuous improvement of the product."

While Synthetic Genomics isn't in one the highly politicized areas of biology--it doesn't do stem-cell research--Jurvetson does think the hostility toward stem cell research under Bush has relaxed under Obama. That, he said, has had a tangible result at research universities. "And there's the symbolic respect of science that Obama brings," Jurvetson added. "If you're at the fringes of science, that makes a difference. In the past it wasn't clear if you wanted to go to the U.S. to do research. Now it's on a more even keel."

Not surprisingly, Jurvetson said he was "personally excited about Obama," and he and his family campaigned for him. Of the partners at DFJ, not all share Jurvetson's beliefs. Managing director Tim Draper leans libertarian, for example. Is that a business problem or merely fodder for water-cooler debate?

Neither, Jurvetson said with a straight face. The diversity of opinion is a strength, he argues. He betrays no conflict over working with a man whose political platform is at odds with his own.

It appears to reinforce his business belief that "diversity can be more important than ability" at a company. "A group of diverse thinkers can make better decisions than groupthink. In our firm, for example, Draper and [managing director John] Fisher are completely different in every way. But they found mutual respect. And when I came on I was the tie-breaker."

July 5, 2009 9:00 PM PDT

Marc Andreessen launches new venture fund

by Rafe Needleman
  • 1 comment
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET Networks)

Marc Andreessen, founder of Netscape and co-founder of Opsware, and Ben Horowitz, also co-founder of Opsware, are launching on Monday a new venture fund, cleverly named Andreessen Horowitz (previous story). The fund's mission is financially broad but technologically narrow. Andreessen told me the $300 million fund will invest from $50,000 to $5 million in start-ups, which means it's part angel fund and part typical venture capital firm.

Technologically, Andreessen is keeping things in one wheelhouse: his. "We're ruling out products we don't understand," he says. So no clean tech, no energy start-ups, no green companies, biotech, life sciences, car companies, content, or space vehicles (Andreessen must know that I have a profile of Steve Jurvetson upcoming). Good technologies for the fund include consumer Internet companies, cloud computing, and Web infrastructure plays. Andreessen Horowitz will headquarter on Sand Hill Road in Palo Alto, Calif., and will invest in "almost nothing" outside of Silicon Valley.

The firm will invest in what Andreessen calls "technical founders," those entrepreneurs who get their hands dirty when developing products, and not business wonks who tend to hire developers to implement their vision. "We love it when founders want to be CEOs," Andreessen says.

The fund has made no investments yet, but privately Andreessen has experience as an angel investor. He has put his own money in Twitter, LinkedIn, Aliph, Digg, and Delicious (which was acquired by Yahoo).

What Andreessen knows

I told Andreessen that I thought it was an awkward time to launch a new venture fund. Many of the funds launched during the last bubble (1999) are, by any metric, failing. Andreessen, in fact, quotes stats that show that only about 10 to 20 of the approximately 700 extant funds deliver good returns. With money tightening, there's simply no way the majority of funds--which, to liberally paraphrase Andreessen, suck--will be able to raise money to keep going.

"The top firms have the ability to find and invest in the good companies, " Andreessen said. "We put the case forward that we'll be able to find them."

But even so, I asked him, aren't the exits, or liquidity events, closed for venture-funding companies now and for the foreseeable future? Andreesen: "I don't think there's an exit problem. I think there's a valuable company shortage." He pointed out that there are exits, just not many of them: Data Domain is in the process of being sold in a bidding war for about $2 billion; Pure Digital was sold for $590 million to Cisco Systems; Opsware (Andreessen's company) got picked up by Hewlett-Packard for $1.6 billion; and OpenTable went public and LogMeIn filed for IPO recently.

"The problem is that there aren't valuable companies being formed. And there never have been," Andreessen continues. There are, he says, on average 15 tech companies launched a year that will ultimately do $100 million a year in revenues, and these companies are responsible for 97 percent of the returns in the venture industry overall. "There just aren't that many great founders."

The model for Andreessen Horowitz, when it picks up a company early, will be to give a small company a small amount of money--enough to last three to five engineers nine to twelve months--while they are building their product and have minimal expenses. New Web-based development and hosting products make development fast and cheap. Andreessen won't take a board seat early. He doesn't believe a company needs a board at all until they take in much more money.

Once the product is built, then he'll follow on with $5 million to $10 million, and help the company transition to one with a sales staff, a board, and the headaches of marketing and human resources.

Nothing that Andreessen Horowitz is doing in its firm is revolutionary. The timing is odd, but the philosophies of the fund are straightforward. As is the case for all tech entrepreneurs, the vision is just the opening of this story. The rest of the tale is the execution. We don't know yet if Andreessen Horowitz will pick winner entrepreneurs and companies, although with the firm's connections and Andreessen's history, it's got a chance.

  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Rafe's Radar

Rafe Needleman has been reviewing technology products and businesses since 1988. Formerly editor-in-chief of Byte Magazine, and author of the Catch of the Day column for Red Herring, he's interviewed thousands of tech execs. For this blog he talks to entrepreneurs and start-up CEOs to explore the strategies behind new technologies.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Rafe's Radar topics

Most Discussed

advertisement
Click Here

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right