<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Thank You For Supporting Capitalism&#8221; and Other Investor Tales of Two Cities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/</link>
	<description>Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:30:41 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Geshwiler</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-56983</link>
		<dc:creator>James Geshwiler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 12:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-56983</guid>
		<description>Dan,

There was a presentation that the ACA meeting about secondary purchases. It was pitched in a positive way for angel investors, however historically, these transactions have been at a significant loss--10 cents on the dollar was the going rate during the Tech Wreck. Last recession, the buyers typically targeted at investors who had liquidity problems and needed to generate cash by selling startup-company stocks or to get out from under coming capital calls to venture funds. There have been transactions where angel investors get liquidity at a premium, usually when a large venture firm or private equity fund leads an up round and buys out some of the earlier investors. There&#039;s an argument that this latter type of transaction ought to become more common with more investors that have large funds and need to put more money to work and exit valuations down, so there&#039;s more need to buy a larger portion of the company, That&#039;s balanced by a historic strong prejudice (at least on the East Coast) against early investors exiting while the company is private because its is negative signal about the company&#039;s prospects. It will be interesting to see how much that changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan,</p>
<p>There was a presentation that the ACA meeting about secondary purchases. It was pitched in a positive way for angel investors, however historically, these transactions have been at a significant loss&#8211;10 cents on the dollar was the going rate during the Tech Wreck. Last recession, the buyers typically targeted at investors who had liquidity problems and needed to generate cash by selling startup-company stocks or to get out from under coming capital calls to venture funds. There have been transactions where angel investors get liquidity at a premium, usually when a large venture firm or private equity fund leads an up round and buys out some of the earlier investors. There&#8217;s an argument that this latter type of transaction ought to become more common with more investors that have large funds and need to put more money to work and exit valuations down, so there&#8217;s more need to buy a larger portion of the company, That&#8217;s balanced by a historic strong prejudice (at least on the East Coast) against early investors exiting while the company is private because its is negative signal about the company&#8217;s prospects. It will be interesting to see how much that changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Weinreb</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-56978</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Weinreb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 11:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-56978</guid>
		<description>James,

Was there any talk about establishing some kind of market for illiquid securities?  Fred Wilson has been talking about this on his blog lately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James,</p>
<p>Was there any talk about establishing some kind of market for illiquid securities?  Fred Wilson has been talking about this on his blog lately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Geshwiler</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-56398</link>
		<dc:creator>James Geshwiler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 18:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-56398</guid>
		<description>Stephen,

Thanks for the comment and the link to the post. The quote from me is correct, and Basil Peter&#039;s analysis is interesting but has a flaw: not all venture capital firms are &quot;average.&quot; If angels have a blind strategy toward co-investment partners, they will run into the clash of interests he describes with VCs as well as other investors. However, picking your partners judiciously and aligning their capacities and interests with a particular company&#039;s needs and goals can work well. We mostly co-invest with VC funds between $50M and $200M and other angel groups; but we also have had successful relations with larger firms when the situation merited working together.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen,</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment and the link to the post. The quote from me is correct, and Basil Peter&#8217;s analysis is interesting but has a flaw: not all venture capital firms are &#8220;average.&#8221; If angels have a blind strategy toward co-investment partners, they will run into the clash of interests he describes with VCs as well as other investors. However, picking your partners judiciously and aligning their capacities and interests with a particular company&#8217;s needs and goals can work well. We mostly co-invest with VC funds between $50M and $200M and other angel groups; but we also have had successful relations with larger firms when the situation merited working together.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Fleming</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-56278</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Fleming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 04:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-56278</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d love to have ACA and NVCA back to back.

James, I quoted your ACA panel discussion in the comments to http://tr.im/kBAP ... hope I got it accurately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d love to have ACA and NVCA back to back.</p>
<p>James, I quoted your ACA panel discussion in the comments to <a href="http://tr.im/kBAP" rel="nofollow">http://tr.im/kBAP</a> &#8230; hope I got it accurately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: will indest</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-56085</link>
		<dc:creator>will indest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 23:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-56085</guid>
		<description>Well said, James.  I love the idea of back to back ACA and NVCA.  As one who attended both this year, I agree that they are complimentary, and many will take advantage of the opportunity if they are back-back in the same city.  Thanks for your thoughtful leadership.

Will Indest
Columbus, Ohio</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said, James.  I love the idea of back to back ACA and NVCA.  As one who attended both this year, I agree that they are complimentary, and many will take advantage of the opportunity if they are back-back in the same city.  Thanks for your thoughtful leadership.</p>
<p>Will Indest<br />
Columbus, Ohio</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: “Thank You For Supporting Capitalism” and Other Investor Tales of Two Cities &#171; Adventures in Startups &#38; VC</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/05/04/thank-you-for-supporting-capitalism-and-other-investor-tales-of-two-cities/comment-page-1/#comment-55997</link>
		<dc:creator>“Thank You For Supporting Capitalism” and Other Investor Tales of Two Cities &#171; Adventures in Startups &#38; VC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 10:53:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=22668#comment-55997</guid>
		<description>[...] The hot topics among angel groups were&#8230;.Click here for the rest of the article&#8230;. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The hot topics among angel groups were&#8230;.Click here for the rest of the article&#8230;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
