<?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: Surviving the Downturn: Advice from Seattle-Area Firms Atlas Accelerator, Geospiza, and Mercent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/</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: RC 2</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/comment-page-1/#comment-41149</link>
		<dc:creator>RC 2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=6430#comment-41149</guid>
		<description>Krassen is right about VCs losing money.  Here&#039;s a quote from his blog about one:&#039;

&quot;OVP Venture Partners are the lead investors in M2E Power. Here&#039;s OVP&#039;s record for the past decade:

OVP V has lost 20% per year for 11 years 
OVP VI has lost 10% per year for seven years 
OVP VII has lost 25% per year for two years&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Krassen is right about VCs losing money.  Here&#8217;s a quote from his blog about one:&#8217;</p>
<p>&#8220;OVP Venture Partners are the lead investors in M2E Power. Here&#8217;s OVP&#8217;s record for the past decade:</p>
<p>OVP V has lost 20% per year for 11 years<br />
OVP VI has lost 10% per year for seven years<br />
OVP VII has lost 25% per year for two years&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Krassen Dimitrov</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/comment-page-1/#comment-41137</link>
		<dc:creator>Krassen Dimitrov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=6430#comment-41137</guid>
		<description>Reality Check is generally correct, however, generalizations are dangerous.

First, while the VC industry may be losing money as a whole, there is a select group of VC firms that outperform not only the industry, but most other asset classes as well, helping many entrepreneurs to fulfill their dreams.

Second, the &quot;loser&quot; VCs still control a lot of money; shunning them off would close off entrepreneurs to massive amounts of funding. What entrepreneurs should strive to do is to take the money and then protect the business from the damaging influence of the &quot;loser&quot; VC (such as OVP, where the previous commenter works). It is not easy but it can be done.

Demonizing the whole VC industry is counterproductive, it can lead to drying up of this important for the economy &quot;innovation capital&quot;. Now is not the time to generalize, it is the time to be specific, name names, and expose the incompetent and the lazy. If venture capital management is put in the hands of knowledgeable, thinking and responsible people, everyone will win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reality Check is generally correct, however, generalizations are dangerous.</p>
<p>First, while the VC industry may be losing money as a whole, there is a select group of VC firms that outperform not only the industry, but most other asset classes as well, helping many entrepreneurs to fulfill their dreams.</p>
<p>Second, the &#8220;loser&#8221; VCs still control a lot of money; shunning them off would close off entrepreneurs to massive amounts of funding. What entrepreneurs should strive to do is to take the money and then protect the business from the damaging influence of the &#8220;loser&#8221; VC (such as OVP, where the previous commenter works). It is not easy but it can be done.</p>
<p>Demonizing the whole VC industry is counterproductive, it can lead to drying up of this important for the economy &#8220;innovation capital&#8221;. Now is not the time to generalize, it is the time to be specific, name names, and expose the incompetent and the lazy. If venture capital management is put in the hands of knowledgeable, thinking and responsible people, everyone will win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reality Check</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/comment-page-1/#comment-41134</link>
		<dc:creator>Reality Check</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:34:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=6430#comment-41134</guid>
		<description>VCs have underperformed the market in the past 10 years--actually providing negative returns as a group.

There is no reason to believe they know what they are doing...any more than all those financial planners out there who, last year, said &quot;don&#039;t sell&quot;.

Choosing to listen to VCs at this time is, well, dumb.  Just like listening to financial planners (ever wonder why if they&#039;re so good at predicting thigns, they dont&#039; just invest themselves instead of selling their service?)  Same with VCs.  They sell other people&#039;s money and take a fee.  The results (LOUSY) speak for themselves.

Entrepreneur beware -- avoid VCs and you&#039;ll do yourself a huge favor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VCs have underperformed the market in the past 10 years&#8211;actually providing negative returns as a group.</p>
<p>There is no reason to believe they know what they are doing&#8230;any more than all those financial planners out there who, last year, said &#8220;don&#8217;t sell&#8221;.</p>
<p>Choosing to listen to VCs at this time is, well, dumb.  Just like listening to financial planners (ever wonder why if they&#8217;re so good at predicting thigns, they dont&#8217; just invest themselves instead of selling their service?)  Same with VCs.  They sell other people&#8217;s money and take a fee.  The results (LOUSY) speak for themselves.</p>
<p>Entrepreneur beware &#8212; avoid VCs and you&#8217;ll do yourself a huge favor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gerry Langeler</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/comment-page-1/#comment-41030</link>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Langeler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=6430#comment-41030</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m always disappointed when I see folks from the angel community trying to reposition VCs out of the minds of entrepreneurs. We both have a place in start-up financing, and those places often overlap.  That&#039;s OK. Some days we compete, other days we collaborate. Bashing (particularly inaccurate bashing) is not constructive.  Entrepreneurs need us both.

For the record, our PNW VC firm has done more new deals this year (9) than we have before in our 25 year history.  So much for a slow down.  

None of those 9 new deals had the postulated &quot;minimum $5M in revenues.&quot; In fact, 7 had zero revenues - and most of those still will 6-12 months from now. So much for a VC retreat from early-stage.

Facts are stubborn things.  Let&#039;s all stick to those.  These are tough times, but not impossible times. Let&#039;s roll up our sleeves and get to work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m always disappointed when I see folks from the angel community trying to reposition VCs out of the minds of entrepreneurs. We both have a place in start-up financing, and those places often overlap.  That&#8217;s OK. Some days we compete, other days we collaborate. Bashing (particularly inaccurate bashing) is not constructive.  Entrepreneurs need us both.</p>
<p>For the record, our PNW VC firm has done more new deals this year (9) than we have before in our 25 year history.  So much for a slow down.  </p>
<p>None of those 9 new deals had the postulated &#8220;minimum $5M in revenues.&#8221; In fact, 7 had zero revenues &#8211; and most of those still will 6-12 months from now. So much for a VC retreat from early-stage.</p>
<p>Facts are stubborn things.  Let&#8217;s all stick to those.  These are tough times, but not impossible times. Let&#8217;s roll up our sleeves and get to work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RM Crill</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2008/11/24/surviving-the-downturn-advice-from-seattle-area-firms-atlas-accelerator-geospiza-and-mercent/comment-page-1/#comment-41018</link>
		<dc:creator>RM Crill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:23:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=6430#comment-41018</guid>
		<description>Thanks, just a few clarifications - 
We made four Web 2.0 investments of our total 50+ from the past three years.  Two changed to B2B and are doing well, one is struggling and only one might survive with their initial Web 2.0 strategy.  We focus on enterprise software and material science.

The difference between the prevailing sentiment in the bay area versus here is that the bay area is more heavily influenced by the dominant VC presence.  Companies with tier one venture money need a wake-up call; angel companies never had the &quot;good times&quot; that Sequoia says are over.  It&#039;s not got anything to do with Seattle, per se.

We typically find that venture&#039;s lower threshold is about $50MM although the other panelists suggested $100MM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, just a few clarifications &#8211;<br />
We made four Web 2.0 investments of our total 50+ from the past three years.  Two changed to B2B and are doing well, one is struggling and only one might survive with their initial Web 2.0 strategy.  We focus on enterprise software and material science.</p>
<p>The difference between the prevailing sentiment in the bay area versus here is that the bay area is more heavily influenced by the dominant VC presence.  Companies with tier one venture money need a wake-up call; angel companies never had the &#8220;good times&#8221; that Sequoia says are over.  It&#8217;s not got anything to do with Seattle, per se.</p>
<p>We typically find that venture&#8217;s lower threshold is about $50MM although the other panelists suggested $100MM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
