|
BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE: DAILY BRIEFING | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
BW ONLINE DAILY BRIEFING |
 | |
 | |
 |
||||||
The New Venture Capitalists -- from Corporate America About 38% of all VC funding now comes from big companies, signaling a sea change in strategic thinking Dick Bodman is proud as can be of his venture-capital record. He has 14 companies in the lock-up period before they go public -- which will bring his total IPOs for this year to 15. "Fifteen in one year!" he crows. "I don't think there's another venture capital firm that can say that." Oddly, for a managing general partner with a great record, Bodman is reluctant to brag about his exploits in much greater detail. That's because he doesn't run a top-dog VC firm such as Brentwood or Kleiner Perkins, but rather he heads AT&T Ventures, a former subsidiary of AT&T. Which means that he has to follow corporate rules of discretion. Buoyed by the bull run in the stock market plus surging interest in e-commerce and the Internet, venture capital disbursements hit a record $13 billion last year. According to statistics from industry tracker VentureOne, roughly $5 billion of that -- or 38% -- was kicked in by corporations in search of successes such as Bodman's. Compare that total to the $1.2 billion corporations invested in 1994, and you have evidence of a sea change in the way big companies view risk capital. What's driving this trend is the realization that product innovation and technological savvy aren't just important in the Internet Age: They're the key to corporate survival. Big companies want to control the technologies that affect their businesses, but they're disenchanted with the idea of sinking huge amounts into research and development that may never see the light of day. It's far better, they seem to be saying, to turn the R&D effort into a profit center. "We can't invent everything," says Fernand Kaufman, vice-president for strategic development and new business at Dow Chemical, a general partner in four venture funds totaling $100 million. "And [the venture-capital model] has both strategic benefits and financial rewards." THREE METHODS. So it is that Intel Corp. creates its Intel 64 fund to invest in new technologies that will eventually use more Intel next-generation 64-bit chips. Or that Allstate Insurance invests in Apropos Technologies, a company whose software products can enhance Allstate's customer-service call center. Or that Dow Chemical's fund invests in Illumina, which makes a fiber-optic sensor that's good for testing chemical products. While the rewards of corporate venture investing are enticing, choosing the best approach can be a black art. Some corporations do it ad hoc, through operating divisions, the finance department, the mergers and acquisitions group, the business development function, or some other business unit that happens to come up with a bright idea. Other companies create a business development group with a specified venture-capital budget. Created as one of Lucent's 11 business units two years ago, Lucent Technologies New Venture Group (NVG) uses a venture-capital model to develop ideas that come out of Bell Labs. Still other companies have spun off the ventures piece of their budgets into separate funds that have a strategic investment mandate but aren't consolidated on the balance sheet. A corporation that spawns such a fund may have an investment in the fund's stock or may invest in one of the funds the venture company manages. AT&T Ventures falls into this category, as does Lucent Ventures -- a venture-capital arm that funds ideas from outsiders but is separate from the Lucent Technologies New Ventures Group. Other major companies with separate funds include Dow Chemical and SmithKline Beecham. A ONE-IN-TEN JACKPOT. As of last year, 67% of corporate venture-capital groups were organized in one of the first two ways, according to VentureOne's statistics. But as corporations get used to the idea of profits from venture investments and tire of the political and accounting hassles of keeping such operations in-house, they are increasingly trying the separate fund model. This evolution indicates a change in the way corporations view business development. No longer a defensive strategy, R&D is a potential money-maker. But for it to achieve its potential, it has to be outside a company's normal reporting structure. That's because most public companies can't stomach the roller-coaster nature of earnings from venture investments. Consider an average VC's record across all stages from seed money to mezzanine investments. Typically, 1 of every 10 deals hits a home run, defined as a return in excess of 50%. Another two or three pay back the principal investment. And the rest tank. Tank means losing billions over the life of a fund. If you're a corporate chieftain, try telling that to a bunch of analysts when you announce your quarterly results. As stakeholders in independent funds, though, corporations demand and generally get the same annual returns as traditional VCs: 25% to 30%. And the company rakes in this profit without having to declare the in-between losses from the bum investments. BUDGET BLIP. Even in arms-length venture funds, corporations tend to be more cautious than VCs, going for doubles and triples rather than for home runs. It's a strategy that keeps the corporate brand name sparkling. "If a traditional VC has a 1 in 10 hit rate [for seed capital investments], ours is probably the reverse," says Michael Pralle, president and CEO of GE Equity. The $1.3 billion fund has just announced that it'll throw $50 million into seed capital in Europe. Avoiding conflicts over strategic fits is another reason to spin off a venture subsidiary. AT&T Ventures started in 1991 as a blip in the budget. "We put money in small companies that we thought might be important to us in the future," says Bodman. As time went on, it became apparent that the fund was at a disadvantage as a department of AT&T. Entrepreneurs and independent VCs weren't thrilled about having AT&T in their deal. "If your motive is not simply greed, nobody trusts you," Bodman adds. "People want to know that if I'm on the board of a company, the only way I'll get rich is if they get rich. They don't want me pushing some AT&T agenda." Conflicts over pay for fund managers is another reason to create a separate venture unit. A corporate venture-fund manager might earn $400,000 a year with bonuses. Partners in independent VC firms make three times as much because they can keep a carried interest in deals -- options on the future equity of the venture. MANAGEMENT BUY-IN. At GE Equity, this gave rise to a battle between the venture guys and Chairman Jack Welch. While Welch had no problem cashing in $31 million worth of GE stock options last year, there's a perception among some within GE that he's less keen on venture managers making really big money. GE declines to comment on the subject. At least Welch believes in GE Equity. Top management buy-in is crucial to any corporate venture-capital effort. Getting and keeping such a commitment can be a big question mark for corporate venture funds, which understand that if the economy sours and management starts looking for things to dump they can disappear. "We believe we've found a solution that works, but AT&T might have a shift in strategy," notes Bodman. "A corporate venture-capital program that has lasted more than 10 years is hard to find." The best plan, it seems, is to produce a superb track record -- and put faith in the idea that the fit will survive. By Margaret Popper in New York _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
| |
 | |
 Assistive Technology barker.online Byte of the Apple Eye on Japan Hers.online Inside Wall Street Not-So-Neutral Corner Online Asia Power Lunch Privacy Matters Sector Scope Sound Money Street Wise Washington Watch News Flash Archive | ||||||
