Comments on: Funding Gap? Ha! http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/ Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:30:41 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Md. Mujahidur Rahman http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/comment-page-1/#comment-22111 Md. Mujahidur Rahman Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:54:02 +0000 http://dev2.xconomy.com/?p=2883#comment-22111 Dear Sir With reference to above subject I would like to request you to provide me information regarding funding on Crocodile Firm. Being a future enterpenur form Bangladesh in this sector I have abundant recourses related to this project. At presence, I'm in need of a Financier & Guide to make my dream comes true. In Bangladesh, we have a great opportunities and bright future in this project. Awaiting for your early response. with Thanks Md. Mujahidur Rahman Dhaka, Bangladesh Cell: 8801817-031662. Dear Sir
With reference to above subject I would like to request you to provide me information regarding funding on Crocodile Firm.
Being a future enterpenur form Bangladesh in this sector I have abundant recourses related to this project.
At presence, I’m in need of a Financier & Guide to make my dream comes true.

In Bangladesh, we have a great opportunities and bright future in this project.

Awaiting for your early response.

with Thanks

Md. Mujahidur Rahman
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Cell: 8801817-031662.

]]> By: Early-stage investor says funding gap does not exist, only "expectation gap" | Technology Transfer Tactics http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/comment-page-1/#comment-21723 Early-stage investor says funding gap does not exist, only "expectation gap" | Technology Transfer Tactics Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:12:55 +0000 http://dev2.xconomy.com/?p=2883#comment-21723 [...] He doesn’t spare university researchers or TTOs from criticism either, citing an era of easy money in the late 1990s as fomenting unrealistic expectations for what constitutes technology worthy of funding. For research that does meet realistic criteria and is not burdened by pie-in-the-sky financial expectations, a funding gap will not be a barrier, he asserts. “Academic investigators need to face facts. If you have a great technology, with reasonable and lucid proof-of-concept, addressing a significant unmet need, and that can be protected as proprietary; and, if — and this is the big IF — you have reasonable expectations in terms of valuation and risk-sharing, then you will be able to attract venture funding. Plenty of it,” Weissberg says. To prove his point, he points to his own company’s string of successful investments, as well other early-stage VCs with a similar track record, and maintains that great ideas need not go begging for funds if the backers and the innovators both can approach the commercialization process with a bit more give and take. “If you are an academic and you cannot get someone to back your idea, do three things: take a hard look at your technology (or even ask someone else to do so); take a hard look at your expectations; and, take a hard look in the mirror. Honest assessment in these three efforts will tell you why,” he opines. “If you are a VC crying crocodile tears over all of the impediments between your partnership and early-stage biotechnology investment, quit it. You make us all look like complete asses. Pull up your britches, wipe your nose, and admit it — ‘I am no longer a VC. I am now a private equity investor with an exceedingly small fund.’ Go to: Xconomy [...] [...] He doesn’t spare university researchers or TTOs from criticism either, citing an era of easy money in the late 1990s as fomenting unrealistic expectations for what constitutes technology worthy of funding. For research that does meet realistic criteria and is not burdened by pie-in-the-sky financial expectations, a funding gap will not be a barrier, he asserts. “Academic investigators need to face facts. If you have a great technology, with reasonable and lucid proof-of-concept, addressing a significant unmet need, and that can be protected as proprietary; and, if — and this is the big IF — you have reasonable expectations in terms of valuation and risk-sharing, then you will be able to attract venture funding. Plenty of it,” Weissberg says. To prove his point, he points to his own company’s string of successful investments, as well other early-stage VCs with a similar track record, and maintains that great ideas need not go begging for funds if the backers and the innovators both can approach the commercialization process with a bit more give and take. “If you are an academic and you cannot get someone to back your idea, do three things: take a hard look at your technology (or even ask someone else to do so); take a hard look at your expectations; and, take a hard look in the mirror. Honest assessment in these three efforts will tell you why,” he opines. “If you are a VC crying crocodile tears over all of the impediments between your partnership and early-stage biotechnology investment, quit it. You make us all look like complete asses. Pull up your britches, wipe your nose, and admit it — ‘I am no longer a VC. I am now a private equity investor with an exceedingly small fund.’ Go to: Xconomy [...]

]]> By: herve lebret http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/comment-page-1/#comment-20893 herve lebret Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:23:16 +0000 http://dev2.xconomy.com/?p=2883#comment-20893 Just look at what Robert Noyce, the founder of Intel, says: “Look around who the heroes are. They aren’t lawyers, nor are they even so much the financiers. They’re the guys who start companies.” So we should not put too much emphasis on innovation support including VCs, TTOs, and so on. Silicon Valley developed mostly because of Noyce, Jobs and then Yang and Filo, Page and Brin. So we need people who take risks. They should not assess the level of risk too much because then they will probably not do anything. The nature of the business is indeed risky and uncertain. I agree with you that there has been plenty of money. Europe has faced the same advantages (oups constraint): too much (easy) money… Just look at what Robert Noyce, the founder of Intel, says: “Look around who the heroes are. They aren’t lawyers, nor are they even so much the financiers. They’re the guys who start companies.” So we should not put too much emphasis on innovation support including VCs, TTOs, and so on.

Silicon Valley developed mostly because of Noyce, Jobs and then Yang and Filo, Page and Brin. So we need people who take risks. They should not assess the level of risk too much because then they will probably not do anything. The nature of the business is indeed risky and uncertain.

I agree with you that there has been plenty of money. Europe has faced the same advantages (oups constraint): too much (easy) money…

]]> By: Johnny Stine http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/comment-page-1/#comment-20647 Johnny Stine Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:31:55 +0000 http://dev2.xconomy.com/?p=2883#comment-20647 That would be the "Meat Loaf" model of "two out of three..." More to come later......EXCELLENT article CW. Cheers, Johnny That would be the “Meat Loaf” model of “two out of three…”

More to come later……EXCELLENT article CW.
Cheers,
Johnny

]]> By: Lee @ Angels Den http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/06/14/funding-gap-ha/comment-page-1/#comment-20635 Lee @ Angels Den Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:05:15 +0000 http://dev2.xconomy.com/?p=2883#comment-20635 "Academic investigators need to face facts. If you have a great technology, with reasonable and lucid proof-of-concept, addressing a significant unmet need, and that can be protected as proprietary; and, if—and this is the big IF—you have reasonable expectations in terms of valuation and risk-sharing, then you will be able to attract venture funding. Plenty of it. Even in Seattle." I couldn't agree more! The only issue is that this concept is focused on the "one in a million" situation where all these factors exist in the same business. If an angel investor or venture capitalist would invest in this business then you would expect many hundred per cent ROI. However, I believe most angel investors and venture capitalists would have a far lower minimum expected ROI. The list you give is the ideal, however, most venture capitalists and angel investors would follow the Fleetwood Mac model - "two out of three ain't bad" and then take their interest further. The thing is most entrepreneurs seriously let themselves down, not in terms of the financials or the concept, but approach and presentation. I believe that generally entrepreneurs could greatly improve their chances by getting their pitch right in the first place. Regards, Lee “Academic investigators need to face facts. If you have a great technology, with reasonable and lucid proof-of-concept, addressing a significant unmet need, and that can be protected as proprietary; and, if—and this is the big IF—you have reasonable expectations in terms of valuation and risk-sharing, then you will be able to attract venture funding. Plenty of it. Even in Seattle.”

I couldn’t agree more! The only issue is that this concept is focused on the “one in a million” situation where all these factors exist in the same business. If an angel investor or venture capitalist would invest in this business then you would expect many hundred per cent ROI. However, I believe most angel investors and venture capitalists would have a far lower minimum expected ROI.

The list you give is the ideal, however, most venture capitalists and angel investors would follow the Fleetwood Mac model – “two out of three ain’t bad” and then take their interest further.

The thing is most entrepreneurs seriously let themselves down, not in terms of the financials or the concept, but approach and presentation. I believe that generally entrepreneurs could greatly improve their chances by getting their pitch right in the first place.

Regards,

Lee

]]>