Tag Archive for 'Venture Capital' Page 2 of 3



GRA’s New Venture Fund

Georgia Research AllianceSigh. I read this story and again, I got excited. Until I dug into the details. Don’t get me wrong, I think more investment is a great thing. I just wish this didn’t have and funding restrictions.

The gist of the story is that the Georgia Research Alliance is going to set up a venture fund to provide early stage financing to startups. The state will provide $10 million and be matched by $30 million by the private sector. So a total of $40 million available for investment.

The problem (for me) is this caveat:

“The intent of the fund is to grow sustainable Georgia-based companies,” said Mike Cassidy, GRA’s president. “The technology has to have been originated in one of Georgia’s research universities.”

Gah! The reasoning behind this?

“Georgia starts with a very limited amount of venture capital capacity,” Cooper said. “Our reason for doing this is to encourage research and let the universities and their researchers know that there will be financing for their innovations. That will help create jobs.”

Really? Researchers at our colleges won’t do research if they aren’t sure their ideas won’t get funded? Is that really the reason that researchers do research at colleges - to build funded companies? I mean, the title you’ve given them is “researcher”. What will they do otherwise? I just don’t get it. The first part of the quote is right on track but then everything just derails after that.

The other thing I learned was this tidbit:

This is not the first time the GRA has backed a venture capital fund. In 1994, Alliance Technology Ventures was launched to invest in new Georgia technology companies.

In case you missed it, I recently wrote a post on ATV. I had no idea the GRA was involved in ATV’s formation. What doesn’t make sense is why ATV was allowed to fold when the GRA knew that they were advancing this initiative. That is pretty puzzling.  Perhaps the GRA doesn’t want a traditional VC structure around this fund.  There aren’t any details in the article so it’s hard to tell.

Scott Burkett is a bit more positive than me. Maybe I’m just being grumpy and should be happy for whatever we can get.  My belief is that by artificially restricting access to funding like this will inevitably lead to less than stellar returns and give folks a reason to point and say that you need harsher terms in Georgia and/or there aren’t any good deals in Georgia.  Both of which we know aren’t true.

Event: Southeast Venture Conference

If you’ve been contemplating going to the Southeast Venture Conference but it seemed $50 too expensive, then here is your chance.  Jason Caplain posted a discount code on his blog that you can use when you register.  I’ve never been to the conference (this is only the second year for the conference) so I can’t make a value judgment either way.  If you went last year and think it rocks or it sucks, post a comment and say so.

[via Josh Watts]

The Implosion of An Atlanta VC

People have been talking to me lately about what VCs are around and actively investing in Atlanta. Before I get to that topic, I thought I’d talk about a curiosity at one that has imploded (they are not at all that unique in imploding, by the way).

Alliance Technology VenturesI came to know of Alliance Technology Ventures while I was doing my fund raising in 2001. The funny thing was we had previously pitched to the better known ATV - Advanced Technology Ventures (in Boston and the Valley) prior to pitching that Atlanta ATV (ATV-ATL from here on out). Because people sometimes got confused by the similarity in the names, there was even a note on ATV-ATL’s old site.

Over a year ago I had heard that ATV-ATL was shutting down. They launched in 1994 (according to their old website). They had fully invested their last fund and they weren’t raising any more money. This seems to be a common story with Atlanta VCs since I know of at least two others who are in this death spiral.

So the thing that is most puzzling about this is ATV-ATL’s old domain name. You see, they had a very coveted three letter domain name - atv.com (single letter domains are probably the most coveted). These are coveted because all of the possible three letter and number combinations under the .com TLD are registered. So the only way to get one is to buy it from someone.

The domain name now points to an all terrain vehicle site with a small note on the bottom saying that ATV-ATL’s site is now at www.alliancetechventures.com.

I find it very hard to believe that the other ATV, whose sites are at www.atvcapital.com and www.atv-ventures.com, wouldn’t have jumped at the chance to buy a premium domain name like this. Of course, I don’t know what ATV-ATL got for the atv.com name but since I haven’t seen any stories on this, I can’t believe it was record breaking. Given that the other ATV has over $1.4 billion under management, I’m sure they would have carved out some of their annual management fee to pay for a new domain name.

In the end, just another sad story about another local VC gone bust. Looking at their last set of portfolio companies explains a lot, I think.

Value+ Ventures: What’s the Plus About?

Value+ VenturesAfter seeing this article about a new venture firm in town, I got excited. Before I got ahead of myself I thought I’d reach out to Steve Nussrallah and get some direct scoop and see if the story was, in fact, reality. Well, as it turns out not quite. It’s still a good story but not exactly as reported.

Steve NussrallahSteve has left Noro-Moseley Partners, but it sounds like it’s on good terms. Steve and his crew (more on the crew in a minute) are occupying the same office space that was Noro-Moseley’s Mansell Office (it’s still on their web site, in fact). Heck, Steve is still getting email at his Noro-Moseley address. If he had left to start a competing venture firm, I don’t think that would have been the case.

There are three principals in the company. Steve Nussrallah, Jeff Neppl, and Christopher Demetree.

Steve Nussrallah just left Noro-Moseley. But before that he was the CEO of Concurrent Computer Corp. and remains the Chairman there. He spent quite a bit of time at Scientific Atlanta and holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (University of Cincinnati) and a M.S. in Electrical Engineering (University of Michigan).

RecordantJeff Neppl and Chrisopher Demetree were both recently at Recordant. I’ll cover the company in a future post but it’s important to note that Recordant’s two fundraising rounds ($12m total) came from Pequot Ventures (New York), Kodiak Venture Partners (Boston), and Aurora Funds (Durham, North Carolina). Yes, that’s right - no local investors.

Looking at these guys, I note that none of them have an MBA. That’s probably a good thing. People with MBAs (like myself) and no real experience (unlike myself) tend to suck.

The one important thing to note about this group is that they don’t have a fund. They aren’t raising a fund and they don’t plan on raising a fund. They may make individual investments (from the partner’s pocket) or tap a network of high net-worth individuals for investments into startups. The original article implies that the firm is going to make investments through a fund, that just isn’t true.

So what exactly are these guys doing if they aren’t really doing investments? They are going to work with teams that may not be ready (because of the team, the product, or whatever) to raise money yet. These folks will come in and work for the CEO of the startup in whatever role is necessary and help them perfect their pitch and raise money. Steve was very clear on one point - they do not intend to take on a CEO role of any company they work with. Two big reasons for this. First, this is threatening to company CEOs. I’d agree with this statement. Second, if they raised money with one of their guys as CEO, they could get “stuck” running the company. Again, I’d agree with this statement. These guys are looking to ramp up a number of companies and hope that some become very successful.

So how do you know that this will work? Aren’t these guys just a bunch of consultants? Well, yes they are. But the way Steve described it to me was that their fees are deferred until fund raising and therefore any payment they receive is strictly success based. If they don’t help you raise money, they don’t get anything. Plus like I mentioned above, they may provide bridge or seed funding. Bridge money may convert into preferred shares with additional common shares paid for performance (at least this is how I understood it). Obviously, every deal will be negotiable and entrepreneurs should negotiate as much as possible with these guys and investors in the future.

Garage.com Old LogoWhen Steve told me the premise behind the firm, the immediate thought I had was “oh, this is garage.com all over again”. A long time ago, I was a garage.com client. Back in those days (2000), Garage.com didn’t have a fund and their tag line was “we start up startups” (in fact, I think I still have some pens with their old logo and tag line on it). That came to an end sometime in 2001 when they realized that they weren’t making enough money on startups to keep themselves going (plus the bubble imploded on them).

So is this a sign of a new bubble? Maybe. But I think there is real value in this model. I know the help we received by signing up as garage.com clients was tremendous (Digital Envoy was a Garage.com client before they had a fund). Perhaps the best help came from Chris Melching who was my speaking and presentation coach. After two days I was much more polished and I’ve carried Chris’ presentation tips with me ever since.

So if you’re a technology oriented entrepreneur, this might be a winner for you. Steve mentioned that their strengths are in the areas of financial advice, business development, sales, marketing, and operations. If you’re weak in those areas or are a first time entrepreneur, it may be useful to give them a call. Their website isn’t functional yet, but if you’re really an entrepreneur you’ll figure out a way to get a hold of them.

MFG.com Takes On More Money

MFG.comI just got the heads up on this. Apparently MFG.com raised another round of money. To the tune of $26 million. This is after taking $14 million from Jeff Bezos’ personal investment arm. I’ve been told that Mitch Free (CEO of MFG.com) hasn’t taken any local money. And I’ve heard (this is all grapevine and I have no direct confirmation) that the local players have whined about not getting in on this deal (at least previously when Bezos went in). I suspect that no one locally gave Mitch the time of day previously. But once he started raising big money, everyone wanted to be his buddy. Good for him for doing the raise. By the way, Mitch also sold a chunk of his personal shares in this latest round of funding. Good for you, Mitch!

Read more about it on TechCrunch. Thanks for the heads up Josh!