Is Venture Capital Becoming Risk Averse?

from the doesn't-that-defeat-the-purpose dept

Over the past few years, I've had trouble understanding why VCs weren't investing. Valuations were cheap, and the margin for error was much greater. There was no great rush to go public, so you could take your time nurturing the company to be absolutely ready when the window opened up again. However, here are two stories that suggest why VCs have been slow to invest. The first says some VCs say the overall game is changing. They say that typical "portfolio model" of investing won't work any more, and they need to become more risk averse. They believe there won't be many more "home runs", and so they need to aim for the "singles" instead. That means investing in later stage companies and taking a more active role. Of course, that sort of defeats the whole point of venture capital - which is supposed to be "risk" capital. What that VC is really saying is that he's too scared to make a bet any more. If you're in a risky game and you're too scared to make a bet, it's time to leave the table. The other, more enlightening, argument for why VCs haven't been investing is sort of a trickle-down theory from the VCs at VentureBlog. The theory goes something like this: at each stage, each investor is investing with an eye towards the next stage of raising money. Without an IPO market late stage investors won't invest (too risky). Without late stage investors, early stage investors won't invest, because they figure the companies will run out of their money before they can get the next round from the late stage guys. Without early stage investors, angel investors won't invest for the same reason. I understand this mentality, but think it's short-sighted. These investors shouldn't be looking at the next stage investment. They should be looking at the big picture, and working with companies to develop overall capital strategies that will take them to a successful conclusion (successful, sustainable, profitable business that has cash rolling in non-stop), rather than pushing for just that next milestone. Yes, it's good to see each step in the path clearly, but when everyone is focused on just that next step, the whole process collapses due to a single break in the chain. Right now there are plenty of great ideas with great people that need money, and plenty of VCs sitting on hoards of money. It would seem like there's a simple solution to this, if only everyone would take a longer term view on the situation.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Fred Tiller, 26 Jun 2003 @ 3:41pm

    VC

    Its interesting because VCs say they have "cash to invest" but they are saving it only for their existing portfolio. I agree the VCs are more risk averse and hold on to their cash waiting for the next MSFT, CSCO or INTL; needle in a haystack. All the while trying to pump up thier portfolio to please their investors. Remember, that VCs have to answer to their investors as well!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2003 @ 7:12pm

    No Subject Given

    It seems like perhaps the government should step in with some type of tax incentives or other way to incent investors to put money into early-stage businesses. If we can afford to give susidies to nuclear power companies, and no-bid contracts Halliburton, and Worldcom, etc., surely startups can get into the game as well.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2003 @ 11:16pm

      Re: No Subject Given

      The IT industry already gets plenty of welfare checks from the government in the name of "upgrading security systems".

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Torsten Jacobi, 27 Jun 2003 @ 6:58am

    No Subject Given

    I would not call it short sighted, it's just the best decision you can make in a 'normal' VC firm. You not get salary hikes for investments that pay off in 10 years. The horizon can only be some 1-3 years, as you also have to show something to the VC fund investors. The chain theory seems pretty much reality.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2003 @ 10:24am

    No Subject Given

    Can you blame them? They've made so many bad investments over the years, that they need some ROI. Remember, they're in it to make money. They're not charity organizations.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2003 @ 10:40am

    No Subject Given

    It's because they aren't investing with the goal of getting a reasonable return over the long term like a traditional investor. They're still in the bubble mindset where they invest as part of a Ponzi scheme, and only get their money if more people invest later on with the public getting screwed post-IPO.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Torsten Jacobi, 27 Jun 2003 @ 2:02pm

      Investment philosophy

      It seems we are all trapped in the same ponzi scheme. Market changes are happening because I expect there will be somenbody who buys at a higher price. Living from dividends does not pay you 7-9% annual returns!

      link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.