Previously, there has been little empirical evidence about the role of venture capital in fostering technological innovation. Recent research, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and Babson College and completed with our colleagues Stanley E. Pratt and Norman Fast (Venture Economics and Venture Capital Journal) shed some new light on the flow of venture capital to highly innovative technological ventures from 1967–1982. The evidence suggests that venture capital not only plays a significant role, but that it is a unique kind of investing in terms of when, where, and how it is done. Ironically, this research indicates that the “capital” in venture capital is the least important ingredient in fostering technological innovation. Rather, it is management intensive, requiring very early involvement by venture capitalists in nurturing budding innovators and technology, and thereby bird-dogging and accelerating the emergence of highly innovative technologies. Further, the post-1979 reduction of the capital-gains tax has led to unprecedented growth and development in the venture-capital industry. One result has been that a new industry structure is emerging, and along with it some new danger signals for the future flow and commercialization of technological innovation. Several lessons emerge from our findings that hold implications for venture capital investors and entrepreneurs alike.
Successful venture-capital investing in technologically innovative firms requires more than just risk money. Savvy entrepreneurs seek out venture capitalists with noteworthy reputations for their nonmonetary, high value-added contributions to fledgling firms. Venture capitalists who can play a highly constructive role in emerging firms can attract higher-quality ventures. Qualities commonly cited by entrepreneurs are: helping to find the select key management-team members: providing credibility with suppliers and customers; and helping to shape strategy when the daily pressures postpone this vital task. As one put it, “It is far more important whom you obtain funding from than how much and at what price.”
Investing in technologically innovative ventures is a more specialized business than suggested by the common stereotype of homogeneity among venture capitalists. Fewer than 5% of the 464 venture-capital firms in our study accounted for nearly 25% of all the investments in highly innovative technological ventures. Investors posses sepcialized know-how, including a web of contacts and networks, a great degree of syndication of deals, and a great intensity of involvement. The message for technology entrepreneurs is clear: focus on venture-capital firms with reputations for proven performance in your technology and market, especially with your targeted customers.
Contrary to the notion that venture-capital investors sit and wait for business plans and innovative ideas to come to them and then simply write checks, many of the most active firms do just the opposite: they engage in active “bird-dogging” efforts to identify exceptional innovators with the relevant technical expertise and commitment to bring about the commercialization of promising technologies. They also team with innovators and entrepreneurs to create an “acceleration effect” by actually compressing the time span and increasing the velocity at which new technologies are brought to commercial maturity and societal utility. Founders and investors alike have related numerous examples of highly innovative technological ventures that became realities in what they believed to be one-fourth to one-half the time that would have been required within a large, established firm.
Looking ahead, the new venture-capital climate of the mid-1980s offers both bane and blessing.
As the pool of capital has exploded, the industry has become more diverse and specialized than even before. Sharp differences are visible in terms of investing objectives, criteria, and strategy, focusing on particular stages, size, and a technology-market niche. Megafunds of $100 + million have been raised, and as funds get larger the minimum investment escalates, typically $1 million or more now. Entrepreneurs in search of venture capital need to be more knowledgeable and focused than ever before.
Significant portfolio problems continue to surface as the would-be “pearls” of 1982–1984 become “lemons” in 1985–1986. One results of this is the drying up of funds for seed and strat-up investments. Many venture capitalists are simply overburdened by cleaning up problems in their own portfolios and in replacing management. Fortunately, some innovative venture capitalists have seen opportunity in this adversity, and a handful of specialized seed and first-stage funds have been launched.
Ironically, many of the trends and pressures in the venture-capital industry in the mid-1980s may inadvertently shift investing attention away from more innovative technological ventures. The implications of these changes are painful for entrepreneurs, investors, and the nations. How can technological innovation and international competitiveness be achieved of the venture-capital community is unable-or unwilling-to contribute as greatly to the funding of new innovations as it has in the past? Where will technology entrepreneurs find the risk capital and “value-added involvement” so vital to commercial success? And how can venture-capital pools provide the handsome yields on invested capital of the past if they shift investing to later-stage ventures?
On the brighter side, we are still in an era of unprecedented opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Even with the sharp drop in new funds available in venture-capital pools to an estimated $2.5 billion in 1985, this is still 25 to 50 times greater than the annual flow of new venture capital during the dismal 1970s. The recent industry shake-up, coupled with a continuance of the favorable capital-gains tax, should foster a healthier, if not wiser and more disciplined, venture-capital industry during the remainder of the decade.