Most popular posts
- What makes great boards great
- The fate of control
- March Madness and the availability heuristic
- When business promotes honesty
- Due diligence: mine, yours, and ours
- Alligator Alley and the Flagler (?!) Dolphins
- Untangling skill and luck in sports
- The Southeastern Growth Corridors
- Dead cats and iterative collaboration
- Empirical evidence: power corrupts?
- A startup culture poses unique ethical challenges
- Warren Buffett and after-tax returns
- Is the secret to national prosperity large corporations or start-ups?
- This is the disclosure gap worrying the SEC?
- "We challenged the dogma, and it was incorrect"
- Our column in the Tampa Bay Business Journal
- Our letter in the Wall Street Journal
Other sites we recommend
Category Archives: Venture Capital Industry
Source: AtlantaInno By: Madison Hogan
David Wise, AVOXI founder and CEO, said the investment will be used to accelerate product development, sales and marketing at the company.
“We plan in a very large global marketplace to use the money kind of across the board to continue to accelerate the growth of the company,” he said. “There’s a huge, huge market for us. We’re not limited in terms of geography or even in industry.”
AVOXI will also grow its Atlanta team of 80 employees significantly, Wise said. The company will look to add employees to its marketing and software engineering team.
“We’re looking at the business and trying to evaluate what is the maximum levers we need to work to kind of optimize the opportunity,” he said.
The company provides toll free virtual numbers to more than 2,400 corporate contact centers around the world.
“We help customers connect to their clients globally,” Wise said. “So we sell global virtual phone numbers. Clients selling goods or services located in Atlanta, Georgia—they want to reach customers in Singapore, we can give them local phone numbers in those markets and those phone numbers can ring over the top of any premise-based communication system.”
AVOXI also offers a cloud-based contact center technology that allows clients to deliver calls on their platform and measure the productivity of agents making the phones calls, Wise said. Clients can then look for ways to improve their sales closing ratio and how to better serve their customers.
Wise said Ballast Point was a perfect fit for AVOXI as an investor, because the team understands the market.
“They understand and appreciate the reputation that we bring to the table and what it takes,” he said. “And for them, they’re really smart, savvy guys that have the ability to do more if we need it and they also have the right connections in the Southeast for us to use as we continue to scale and grow the business.”
“We are excited to partner with David and his team to drive continued contact center market leadership and technology innovation,” Paul Johan, partner at Ballast Point Ventures, who will join AVOXI’s board of directors, said in a statement. “BPV has a strong history of supporting high-growth cloud software and communications companies throughout the Southeast, and we believe AVOXI has done an impressive job building a global communications business to serve the ever-evolving needs of its customers.”
Source: Tampa Bay Business Journal
By: Margie Manning
In the nearly one year since Ballast Point Ventures in Tampa invested $4 million in venture capital in Symphonic Distribution Inc., the digital music distribution company in Tampa has been able to make moves needed to scale the business.
Full Article: Tampa Bay Business Journal
Source: Florida High Tech Magazine
Home to more than 383,000 millionaire households and 34 people on Forbes’ list of the 400 richest people in America, Florida has ample funding available. While success stories from across The Corridor exhibit how startups like Orlando’s Fattmerchant, Tampa’s Morphogenesis and Gainesville’s Captozyme have tapped into such wealth, the reality is most entrepreneurs struggle in an increasingly competitive environment.
Fundraising has accelerated rapidly in recent years. While funds grow in dollar amounts, the number of funds has remained relatively the same. This dynamic causes investors to write fewer, larger checks, making it more difficult for smaller companies seeking less capital to benefit unless they boast a disruptive or scalable idea. Indeed, MoneyTree’s Q1 report this year ranked Florida among the top five states for largest deals by dollar amount, with $511 million in financing distributed amongst just 20 contracts.
“On one hand, The Corridor region is a much more credible geographic area to invest in than it was 15 years ago and investors from all over the country now consider investing here,” said Randy Scott, partner at Gainesville’s HealthQuest Capital and advisory board member for the Florida Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research. “On the other hand, the businesses starting here tend to be the ones raising smaller amounts of capital, which will make it tougher to raise capital in this era of bigger deals.”
Randy has been an executive, board member, entrepreneur and investor in health care and medical technology companies for more than 30 years. He recommends smaller companies in The Corridor seek funding from “less traditional sources like angel groups or family offices,” which offer assets from wealthy individuals or families with longer investment horizons.
Tampa’s Ballast Point Ventures, the most active venture investor in Florida over the past 10 years, is not an angel group or family office, yet it does assist companies in earlier stages generating around $3 million in revenue. According to Principal Sean Barkman, who works largely with software-as-a-service companies, this segment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem is underserved by larger funds.
“We are pleased that five of our first 10 investments in Ballast Point Ventures III (a $164-million fund raised in early 2015) are based in Florida and three of those companies are based in Central Florida,” said Sean.
Similarly, IDEA Fund Partners is one of the most active seed and early-stage venture investors throughout the Southeast with stakes in three Florida companies, including one in The Corridor. With offices in North Carolina and Orlando, its managers review over 1,000 business plans a year, but typically make only one investment a month. This scenario is not uncommon among firms, said Founding Partner Richard Fox.
All three investors would agree success stems from investing not only in funds, but also in entrepreneurs. For Florida and The Corridor to advance the entrepreneurial ecosystem, assisting early-stage companies in the competitive environment is key. As Randy explained, venture capital money “chases talent more than technology.”
“We need to turn Florida into a destination for high potential and already successful entrepreneurs to move to. Then, everything will take care of itself in time.”
Several groups across the region, such as NEXUS and Seed Tampa Bay, are aware of the challenges facing early-stage companies and are working to help company founders more easily access funds. Before entrepreneurs utter one word of their business pitch, however, much preparation is required. Investors are more likely to work with founders who possess strong business acumen, leadership capability, industry awareness and a realistic company valuation. They must also be adaptable.
“In all the companies we invested in that were successful, every one of them had to pivot because of outside influences, surprise competitors and deeper opportunities in adjacent areas,” explained Richard. “It’s not all about the brilliant idea; it’s whether the company has thought through every scenario.”
It’s not unusual, added Sean, for investment firms and entrepreneurs to build relationships long before any capital is raised.
“The most rewarding part of our job is developing relationships with entrepreneurs and working alongside them to help grow their businesses,” he said. “The entrepreneurial spirit is truly unique, and we are thrilled to be part of the growing ecosystem here.”
In the world of venture capital, progress begets progress. As early investments in some of The Corridor’s leading technology entrepreneurs are coming to fruition, the region faces immense potential. Crucial to growth is reinvestment by successful entrepreneurs. We need them to serve as angel investors and advisors for the next wave of pioneers. This cycle proves efficacy, enticing even more investors and entrepreneurs to The Corridor, where a favorable business tax climate, modern infrastructure, talented workforce and lifestyle amenities provide refuge from the rising costs and bloated markets of other high tech hubs.
Dick Brandewie, co-founder of Ballast Point Ventures in Tampa, remembered for ‘intellectual curiosity’ and love of people
Source: Tampa Bay Business Journal
By: Ashley Gurbal Kritzer
Brandewie, who co-founded the firm in 2001, died July 14 at the age of 63 after a long illness, according to an obituary published Friday.
Full Article: Tampa Bay Business Journal
On this day in 1906, the Wright Brothers were granted a patent for their “flying machine.” In honor of the anniversary, we reprint this – one of our most popular, most-read pieces.
(Original publish date: April 17, 2013)
The process of productive capital allocation is a critical ingredient of innovation and job growth. Entrepreneurs spending their own (and their partners’) money will create more jobs, more innovation, and a more vibrant economy than politicians picking winners and losers based on cronyism, campaign contributions, and constituent pork.
When government strays out from funding basic research into either applied research or the means of production, the results range from poor to scandalous. Ideas are infinite, and in the absence of competent execution, they are worth nothing. Even if the idea has merit, the true expertise is crowded out. There are better ways policymakers can help encourage innovation.
The invention of the airplane provides an excellent example. While we’re all aware it was the Wright Brothers, many interesting details about funding the innovation don’t make it into school textbooks. In A Tale of ‘Government Investment’ Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven recount the race between the bicycle shop owner/operators and the government-backed head of the Smithsonian.
Who better to win the race [to powered flight] for us, thought our leaders, than the best and brightest minds the government could buy? They chose Samuel Langley. [The War Department gave Langley $50,000, an enormous sum at the time, which The Smithsonian augmented with taxpayer funds of its own.] You don’t know him, but in his day, Langley was a big deal. He had a big brain and lots of credentials. A renowned scientist and a professor of astronomy, he wrote books about aviation and was the head of the Smithsonian. It was the kind of decision that well-intentioned bureaucrats would make throughout the century — and still make today. Give taxpayer money to the smartest guys in the room, the ones with lots of degrees. They’ll innovate and do good for us.
For that Solyndra-type investment the country got the “Great Aerodrome,” which “fell like a ton of mortar’ into the Potomac River – twice. Representative Gilbert Hitchcock of Nebraska remarked, “You tell Langley for me that the only thing he ever made fly was government money.”
Nine days after that second failed test flight, a “sturdy, well-designed craft, costing about $1000, struggled into the air in Kitty Hawk.”
How did two Ohio brothers accomplish what the combined efforts of the War Department, The Smithsonian, and other people’s money could not? The authors cite James Tobin’s To Conquer the Air: The Wright Brothers and The Great Race for Flight (2004) to provide a few answers:
- Langley saw the problem as one of power: how to go from zero to 60 in 70 feet, the stress of which was too great for the materials used. The Wright Brothers, inspired by the practical skills and insights gained from tinkering in their bike shop, understood the problem was one of balance (on a bike, balance+practice = control). They invented the three-axis control (pitch, yaw, roll) still standard on fixed-wing aircraft today. Their entrepreneurial technical expertise was an advantage neither the government nor other private competitors (Alexander Graham Bell) could match.
- Since they couldn’t afford repeated test flights the Wright Brothers were forced to develop a wind tunnel to test their aerodynamics. This saved money and time, since they weren’t bogged down repairing the wrecks of a flawed design.
- No government money also meant no government strings. They were freer to experiment and innovate without worrying about non-essential requests and hidden agendas. They also managed to do more with less since they couldn’t afford subsidy-induced waste.
Habeeb & Levin also offer this fascinating, if not unexpected, coda:
Though the Wrights beat Langley and the Smithsonian, the race didn’t end there. Powerful interests vied for the patent to this revolutionary invention and, more important, for the credit for it. With Smithsonian approval, a well-known aviation expert modified Langley’s Aerodrome and in 1914 made some short flights designed to bypass the Wright brothers’ patent application and to vindicate the Smithsonian and its fearless leader, Samuel Langley.
That’s right. The Smithsonian’s brain trust couldn’t beat the bicycle-shop owners fair and square, so they used their power to steal the credit. And then they used their bully pulpit to rewrite history. In 1914, America’s most esteemed historical museum cooked the books and displayed the Smithsonian-funded Langley Aerodrome in its museum as the first manned aircraft heavier than air and capable of flight.
Orville Wright, who outlived his brother Wilbur, accused the Smithsonian of falsifying the historical record. So upset was he that he sent the 1903 Kitty Hawk Flyer, the plane that made aviation history, to a science museum in . . . London.
But truth is a stubborn thing. And in 1942, after much embarrassment, the Smithsonian recanted its false claims about the Aerodrome. The British museum returned the Wright brothers’ historic Flyer to America, and the Smithsonian put it on display in their Arts and Industries Building on December 17, 1948, 45 years to the day after the aircraft’s only flights. A grand government deception was at last foiled by facts and fate.
As for Samuel Langley, he died in obscurity a broken and disappointed man. Friends often noted that he could have beaten the Wright brothers if only he’d had more time — and more government funding.
Some things never change.
The Wright brothers’ airplane business never took off (groan) due to a combination of poor business decisions and sloppy patent work. Wilbur sadly died young (in 1912 at age 45, of illness that some suspect was contracted due to exhaustion from the patent battles) and Orville sold the company in 1915. So the industry grew under the leadership of other companies and other men. (Although the Curtiss-Wright Corporation remains in business today producing high-tech components for the aerospace industry.) One can’t help but wonder what the original inventors might have done had they been the beneficiary of a strong partnership with a VC fund…
We have written from time to time on the question of which legal structure is best suited to private growth companies looking to raise outside growth capital. Not surprisingly, there is no one right answer to the question, but recent tax legislation should compel entrepreneurs to give serious consideration to the C-corporation structure.
This article in last week’s Business Observer contains important news about the potential tax benefits of a C-corporation for entrepreneurs and their investors.
However… just as people shouldn’t decide to have children for the tax benefits, we advise founders to not view tax considerations in a vacuum when choosing the legal structure for their businesses. They need to think hard about the long term goals for the business and seek expert advice on the optimal legal structure.
The author of the article (Pamela Schuneman, C.P.A.) first argues that the prospects of federal tax reform may tip the scales towards choosing a C-corp:
Now, with tax reform on the horizon and a push to lower the corporate tax rate, current tax savings on C Corporation earnings could be substantial if the corporate rate drops to 15% and the top individual rate only drops to 33%. That’s an 18% difference — $18,000 more on $100,000 of income.
It’s a little more accurate to say the corporate rate drops “closer” to 15%, which compares favorably to an LLC structure where investors are taxed at their individual income tax rates on income that is “passed through” to investors.
Next she explains that a 1993-era tax provision governing a type of capital gains, originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, has been made permanent. And this change, in our view, is a potential game changer.
The gain exclusion for Sec. 1202 was originally set [now made permanent – ed] at 50% for stock acquired [in private C corps – ed] on or after Aug. 11, 1993, increased to 75% for acquisitions after Feb. 17, 2009, and expanded to a full 100% exclusion for acquisitions after Sept. 27, 2010.
The 2010 law also removed of one of the main drawbacks of this tax provision – the alternative minimum tax preference.
In a nutshell, Sec. 1202 allows taxpayers (other than corporations) to exclude from federal income tax 100% of the gain from the sale of qualified small business stock (“QSBS”). The amount of gain excluded is limited to the greater of $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the investment.
There are requirements to qualify for the tax break, which we outline below. But first we’d like to share one more excerpt from the article to emphasize the importance of this legislation to founders and their investors:
For example, Tom and Jane decide to start a software development business. They purchase stock for $10,000 each and have a 50-50 ownership interest in the C Corporation. The stock is eligible for Sec. 1202 treatment if held for five years. In six years, they sell the stock of the company to Google for $10 million. They each have a $4,990,000 gain on the sale of the stock and their tax on the transaction is zero.
Of course we see this as a positive development for the high-growth companies responsible for all net job growth in our economy. Reasonable people will disagree on what tax rates should be. But can we at least agree that there are some forms of investment activity which promote economic growth, and that those forms ought to be encouraged, perhaps with favorable tax treatment?
RELATED STORY: Warren Buffett and after tax returns
If a company’s stock is qualified small business stock (QSBS) then the Internal Revenue Code (§1202) provides a tax break on the equity investments. To qualify as QSBS and for the 0% federal tax rate on gains from the sale of QSBS, the following requirements must be met:
1.) Original issue. The taxpayer recognizing the gain must be an individual, partnership, S corporation or estate and must have acquired the stock at original issue from a US domestic C corporation.
2.) Five-year holding period. The taxpayer must have held the stock for more than five years prior to selling the stock.
3.) After September 27, 2010. The taxpayer must have acquired the stock at original issue after September 27, 2010, in exchange for cash, property other than cash or stock, or services.
4.) $50 million Gross Assets Test. The aggregate gross assets of the corporation that issued the stock cannot have exceeded $50 million at the time of (including immediately before and after) the issuance of the stock to the investor.
5.) Active Business Test. During substantially all of the taxpayer’s holding period of the stock, at least 80% of the issuing corporation’s assets must be used by the corporation in the active conduct of one or more qualified trades or businesses. (Certain types of businesses, including some pure service businesses like consulting firms or doctor practices, don’t qualify, but many businesses do.)
6.) No significant redemptions. The issuer of the stock must not have engaged in specific levels of buybacks (redemptions) of its own stock during specified periods (typically one year) before or after the date of issuance of the stock to the taxpayer.
The amount of gain eligible for this 0% rate is subject to a cap, however. Section 1202(b)(1) states that the aggregate amount of gain for any taxpayer regarding an investment in any single issuer that may qualify for these benefits is generally limited to the greater of (a) $10 million, or (b) 10 times the taxpayer’s adjusted tax basis in the stock. For a taxpayer who invests cash in the QSBS, basis would generally be equal to the cash purchase price.
Like all issues tax-related, entrepreneurs need to consult with their tax counsel and accounting firm to determine if their businesses qualify for QSBS status. If a business does qualify, an entrepreneur must decide whether these potentially significant tax savings outweigh other considerations. In our view, Congress has now put its thumb on the scale firmly on the side of choosing the C-corporation structure.
PowerDMS, an Orlando-based portfolio company of ours, has received widespread local and national news coverage for its efforts to help the Baltimore Police Department ensure officers see, know, and implement critical policies in critical moments.
Here is the story in the Orlando Sentinel, which includes an interview with PowerDMS CEO Josh Brown.
National print coverage included stories in The Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun; national television coverage included ABC News (“…the department will use web and smartphone applications to help make sure officers read and understand new rules.”) and Fox News (“Baltimore police to use apps for new policies.”)
Baltimore PD’s press conference included a 15-minute live demonstration of PowerDMS, run by the customer. The local CBS Affiliate has footage of that press conference here. (Scroll to the bottom of the story.)
This story is also an example of one of the best things about our business: one of our companies doing well by doing good. While this happens often, it rarely is highlighted so clearly (and broadly!).
In Paradox of the Power Law in Venture Capital, Ho Nam urges entrepreneurs to do their homework on their potential financial partners:
The track record of VCs is overwhelmingly skewed by a tiny handful of winners. However, as an entrepreneur, if you try to assess the reputation of VCs by only looking at home runs, you may get a skewed view.
In good times, investors will be supportive. However, how will they behave during bad times? Even great companies go through ups and downs. If your startup is not one of the big winners (which is likely, based on probabilities), how will your VCs behave? Will they abandon ship, or worse, will they turn negative or downright hostile?
VCs check references before making investments. Entrepreneurs should do the same and check references before taking VC funding. It is critical to talk not only to winners but also to the long tail companies—you will have plenty to choose from… There will be skeletons in every VC closet (disgruntled entrepreneurs) so be realistic in how you assess VCs and what they can do for you… some VCs will work with companies to the end, treating people fairly and with respect. Some VCs will not. You’ll get a much better sense for this when you talk to the long tail.
We gave the very same advice to entrepreneurs a few years ago in Due diligence – mine, yours, and ours.
(M)ost firms will have a good ‘rap’ so it is absolutely essential to verify through your own independent efforts that the partner you choose will be a good fit.
The entrepreneur-VC partnership is a long term one, with shared skin in the game, and so the incentive is to communicate good news and bad to communicate good news and bad forthrightly and in real-time, with both partners promoting transparency and honesty promoting transparency and honesty. That begins during due diligence, when it’s critical to resist the implicit pressure to sugarcoat the negative, and carries through to what legendary venture capitalist Bill Draper calls the “Oh sh- meeting.” calls the “Oh sh- meeting.”
We encourage all our prospective entrepreneur partners to speak with as many of our current and former entrepreneurs as possible – some successful, some less so – in order to get a feel for what we are like to work with in good times and when challenges arise.
Innovation was once a dirty word because it upset the established order; now the word is a form of high praise. It’s also, as we’ve often argued, the source of virtually all of the improvements that make our lives happier, healthier, and more convenient.
In The Great Enrichment, Deirdre Nansen McCloskey writes that “contrary to the conviction of the ‘clerisy’ of artists and intellectuals,” entrepreneurs are “pretty good” and responsible for the “gigantic improvement” in life since roughly 1848, when society as a whole underwent “a startling revaluation of the trading and betterment in which the bourgeoisie specialized.”
(T)he modern world was made not by material causes, such as coal or thrift or capital or exports or exploitation or imperialism or good property rights or even good science, all of which have been widespread in other cultures and other times… [and it] cannot be explained in any deep way by the accumulation of capital, despite what economists from the blessed Adam Smith through Karl Marx to Thomas Piketty have believed, and as the very word “capitalism” seems to imply.
The word embodies a scientific mistake. Our riches did not come from piling brick on brick, or bachelor’s degree on bachelor’s degree, or bank balance on bank balance, but from piling idea on idea. The bricks, B.A.s, and bank balances — the “capital” accumulations — were of course necessary. But so were a labor force and liquid water and the arrow of time. Oxygen is necessary for a fire, but it does not provide an illuminating explanation of the Chicago Fire. Better: a long dry spell, the city’s wooden buildings, a strong wind from the southwest, and, if you disdain Irish immigrants, Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.
The modern world similarly cannot be explained by routine brick-piling, such as the Indian Ocean trade, English banking, canals, the British savings rate, the Atlantic slave trade, coal, natural resources, the enclosure movement, the exploitation of workers in Satanic mills, or the accumulation in European cities of capital, whether physical or human. Such materialist ways and means are too common in world history and, as explanation, too feeble in quantitative oomph…
The magnitude of the improvement stuns. Economists and historians have no satisfactory explanation for it. Time to rethink our materialist explanations of economies and histories…
(W)hat mattered were two levels of ideas: the ideas for the betterments themselves (the electric motor, the airplane, the stock market), dreamed up in the heads of the new entrepreneurs drawn from the ranks of ordinary people; and the ideas in the society at large about such people and their betterments — in a word, liberalism, in all but the modern American sense. The market-tested betterment, the Great Enrichment, was itself caused by a Scottish Enlightenment version of equality, a new equality of legal rights and social dignity that made every Tom, Dick, and Harriet a potential innovator.