2018´s Industry Recap and 2019 hottest industries for Venture Capital

2018 was a historical year. Last year saw the highest level of venture capital funding since 2000, the last year of the dot-com bubble.

According to data published by PitchBook and the National Venture Capital Association, Venture Capital firms spread roughly U$S 131 Bn. across 8.949 deals.
The previous record was a $100 million total notched in the year 2000.

More than a half of the total capital invested came from U$S 50 M (or more) deals. This boosted the average deal size and valuations across every investment stage and series last year. But because venture investors are paying so much up front, it’s becoming harder to profit.

382 fundings were U$S 100 M (or more) “megarounds,” up from 266 in 2017, with 184 of those coming from the U.S.
In terms of “unicorns,” companies with a valuation of at least U$S 1 Bn., the U.S. saw the creation of 53 new ones in 2018 versus 29 in 2017.
The fourth quarter alone saw 21 “unicorn births,” the highest ever recorded in a single quarter.

Venture capital investments in Asia rose 42% in 2018 versus 2017 with an 11% increase in the amount of money invested. Asia broke records with a 35% in “megarounds”, to 162, and a 60% jump in the creation of unicorns, with 40 coming of age during the year.

California, Massachusetts, and New York continue their dominance of venture investment activity, attracting 79% of total U.S. capital invested and 53% of the number of U.S. deals completed last year.
VC funding in the San Francisco region jumped 55%, to U$S 28 Bn., and New York funding reached U$S 13 Bn.
Venture Capital firms and investors point to increasing operating costs and higher valuations in those three states, signaling optimism for more investment in emerging ecosystems, which also have the benefits of a growing talent pool, maturing networks and ecosystems, and more favorable pricing.

VC Trends

Artificial intelligence, digital health and financial technology companies led the investment portfolios, with AI-related funding jumping 72%, to U$S 9.3 Bn.

Software continues to eat the world but life science activity has seen significant growth.
More than U$S 23 Bn. was invested across 1,308 deals in life science startups, a record high for both metrics.
Healthtech drew a significant portion of angel/seed investing in 2018Q4, highlighting investor interest in funding groundbreaking technologies to meet some of the biggest challenges and opportunities in the sector.

Ecuación Valuación / Capital Buscado

Cuando el proyecto de un emprendedor avanza y empieza a cumplir con algunos hitos relevantes, es el momento adecuado para llevar a cabo la primer ronda de inversión, buscando un capital de X a una valuación de Y.

En este breve artículo intentaremos aproximarnos a una posible ecuación para calcular X e Y. Nunca nos olvidemos que las valuaciones en la industria del VC, y más aún en la etapa temprana de las compañías, si bien intentan ser científicas, tienen un gran componente de subjetividad. Tal como hemos indicado en artículos previos, no existe un único método para valuar startups, por ello es siempre aconsejable usar varios métodos para esto.

Lo que proponemos a continuación deberá ser tomado como un punto de partida, no como una serie de reglas inquebrantables y una forma infalible para realizar esta tarea.

 

Objetivos, plan de acción y plazo

Antes que nada, es fundamental definir un plazo estimado y los objetivos que tendrá la compañía en ese orden temporal.

Por ejemplo:

  • Crecimiento en cantidad de usuarios (gratuitos, pagos, pruebas piloto, etc.)
  • Mejora del producto
  • Expansión a nuevos mercados

Una vez definidos, cuantificamos el target de esos objetivos. Con los objetivos ya cuantificados, pensemos en qué plazo creemos que se podrán lograr, sin adoptar una postura extremadamente conservadora ni optimista. Ese plazo que se haya definido, en conjunto con los objetivos cuantificados, darán una idea relativamente clara sobre la magnitud de recursos que se necesitará para cumplir con el plan propuesto en el tiempo previsto.

Así, se obtienen los primeros componentes de la estrategia: objetivos, acciones necesarias para cumplir esos objetivos, recursos para llevar a cabo el plan, y velocidad en que deben ser llevadas a cabo el conjunto de acciones del plan.

Recordemos que el final del plazo establecido indica el momento de buscar una nueva ronda de financiamiento. Hay que tener en cuenta las consecuencias que ello traerá: tiempo de dedicación por parte del equipo a la difícil tarea de realizar fundraising en un mercado como el nuestro, la nueva valuación de la compañía por los objetivos alcanzados y métricas mejoradas y dilución de los accionistas actuales, entre otros.

Es fundamental, por lo tanto, fijar un plazo que desde el punto de vista estratégico resulte conveniente.

 

Recursos necesarios

Para fijar el monto de la ronda hay que definir detalladamente todos los costos y gastos a afrontar para lograr adecuadamente los objetivos propuestos.

Es importante proyectar todos los costos fijos, tales como oficina y los gastos asociados a la misma, sueldos y cargas sociales, asesoría legal y contable, entre otros. Pero, sobre todo y, más relevante aún, estimar con coherencia el crecimiento de los costos variables asociados a los objetivos.

Si el objetivo principal es, por ejemplo, lograr un mayor crecimiento en cantidad de visitas a un medio digital, un marketplace o cualquier plataforma cuyo tráfico venga mayormente determinado por la inversión en pauta publicitaria digital, saber como funciona el funnel de conversión, las métricas obtenidas a través del mismo y el retorno de inversión de esa pauta para entender, de la manera más precisa posible, cuanto crecimiento esperamos por cada peso invertido.

A lo largo de este proceso siempre,  las hipótesis se deben basar en métricas obtenidas previamente – que después pueden validarse o no-,pero estas permiten partir de una base lógica para definir cómo crecen las líneas de costos e inversión en un periodo determinado en base a los objetivos más o menos ambiciosos definidos.

Distinto es el caso de una empresa que comercializa un SaaS (B2B) novedoso para una determinada industria, es probable que su proceso de venta sea largo, ya que deberá educar gradualmente al potencial cliente, visitarlo varias veces,contactarlo por otros medios y, eventualmente, la decisión de compra o contratación deberá ser sometida a un largo y complejo proceso corporativo de aprobación. Eso implica una  previsión de contratación de más vendedores (y por un tiempo extendido) en caso de querer acelerar el crecimiento en ventas.

Los inversores tienen muy claro que la valuación y las proyecciones conllevan un componente subjetivo muy importante y que hay innumerables hipótesis de valoración subjetiva, por eso lo que mas les importa es que  las proyecciones se hayan elaborado con sentido común, coherencia y lógica.

No deberían evaluar nuestras proyecciones con una supuesta “exactitud” que rara vez existe.

Por otro lado, se debe considerar las inversiones de capital como desarrollo de plataforma, armado de estructura legal, un estudio de mercado específico por parte de una consultora, etc.

Suelen ser erogaciones relativamente pesadas y pagaderas al principio del periodo proyectado. Es importante mencionar también la importancia de prever con la mayor exactitud posible, el plan de gastos ordenado en el tiempo, con las erogaciones y los ingresos que irán afectando la caja de la compañía mes a mes.

Este detalle ayudará a prever:

  • El trayecto que podrá recorrer la compañía antes de quedarse sin “nafta” o antes de fijar nuevas metas de crecimiento más ambiciosas;
  • La necesidad operativa de fondos mensual y, consecuentemente, el control a efectuar a posteriori para entender la razón de los desvíos para poder corregirlos;
  • Desfasaje existente entre la proyección financiera y la económica en el negocio.

Retomando el caso de la empresa con modelo de negocio B2B. Es evidentemente un proceso de venta largo y que, además, probablemente los plazos de pago oscilen entre los 30 y los 90 días, con lo cual tendrá que financiar la operación (que genera el respectivo ingreso) no menos de 4 o 5 meses contados desde el comienzo del proceso de venta hasta recibir el pago.

Ese es un típico caso donde hay que tener en cuenta el ciclo de capital de trabajo que necesita la compañía para solventar las operaciones y no caer en un distress financiero.

Todos estos elementos ayudarán a entender el orden temporal de la necesidad de fondos y, consecuentemente poder plantear distintos esquemas de desembolsos a los inversores. A veces resulta más atractivo para ellos no tener que transferir el total del capital invertido en una misma operación, ya sea porque sienten mayor seguridad al ir liberando los fondos gradualmente, porque prefieren hacer rendir su capital sin que el mismo quede parado en nuestra cuenta bancaria, o porque el emprendedor demuestra que no está buscando su capital como objetivo principal, sino como un medio necesario para lograr los objetivos del proyecto.

 

Cuál suele ser un plazo razonable?

El plazo debería fijarse entre los 12 y 24 meses. Si se destina el tiempo y el recurso humano correcto y el equipo realiza la tarea de una manera proactiva, una ronda serie A podría requerir entre 3 y 9 meses. En mercados como el de Estados Unidos, donde la actividad VC es mucho más intensa, sugieren que un año debería ser plazo suficiente para posicionar a la compañía para encarar una próxima ronda de serie A.

En un contexto como el de Latino América donde levantar una ronda suele ser un proceso más complejo, demandante y con ciertas barreras, quizás sea más apropiado pensar en 18 o 20 meses como el estándar necesario para que la compañía cuente con mejores chances de levantar una próxima ronda.

El principal riesgo en el que un emprendedor debe incurrir es proyectar un plazo demasiado corto (ej: 12 meses), ya que si no contempla un “colchón” de tiempo necesario para cumplir los objetivos, probablemente llegue al momento en que, sin haber avanzado sustancialmente en el proyecto y en el negocio, se consumen todos los recursos y esto implica volver a levantar una ronda en condiciones desfavorables, afrontando todas las consecuencias negativas que trae aparejada una ronda de inversión (uso de tiempo, pérdida de foco, nueva dilución, etc.)

 

Valuación “Pre-Money”

En la etapa de capital semilla, las compañías suelen tener entre 2 y 5 miembros, y el tiempo de cada uno de ellos es extremadamente valioso. Como dijimos antes, en nuestro mercado una ronda de financiamiento puede absorber gran parte del tiempo del CEO, y también demandará tiempo del resto de los miembros, lo cual es excesivamente costoso cuando la compañía es tan chica y los recursos son limitados.

Los resultados de las startups suelen ser muy binarios: o tienen un gran éxito, o fracasan. Invertir tiempo en una negociación por dos puntos porcentuales de diferencia (o cualquier tipo de diferencia mínima), no marcará una diferencia sustancial. Es preferible tener el 33% de una compañía con muchas chances de éxito antes que perder 2 meses más negociando pocos puntos de valuación y dejar tanto al producto como el negocio desatendido durante el plazo de la negociación.

Este consejo aplica también a inversores: sí creen que una valuación está un 50% excedida, inviertan tiempo en negociar.

Caso contrario, si creen que la valuación está un excedida pero no por una gran diferencia, avancen y no utilicen mucho del preciado tiempo del equipo emprendedor, ya que ello terminará perjudicando a ambas partes.

Para profundizar en algunos parámetros y criterios útiles para determinar valuaciones, sugerimos remitirse a los artículos anteriores de la serie “#DescifrandoArgVC”.

 

El ratio Monto – Valuación como parámetro

Una vez definidos los valores de X (monto de la ronda) e Y (valuación), revisemos a ver si se encuentran dentro de los parámetros razonables.

 

Algunas consideraciones en abstracto:

  1. Si Y es mucho mayor a 4 X, deberíamos intentar proponer un plan de crecimiento mucho más agresivo, ya que parecería que podríamos levantar mucho más capital con un nivel de dilución aceptable;
  2. Si Y equivale a entre 4 y 6 X, parece haber una base razonable para avanzar con la ronda;
  3. Si Y es mucho menor a 4 X, el nivel de dilución parecería estar demasiado alto. No parece muy conveniente ceder más del 20% del capital en la ronda de capital semilla.

 

Qué hacemos si consideramos que nos estamos diluyendo demasiado?

Evitar una dilución significativa para el equipo emprendedor es un punto clave en cualquier ronda de financiamiento. En caso que esté sucediendo esto, se podría pensar en la alternativa de levantar un monto inferior (50/60% de lo previsto) en una primera ronda, y poco tiempo después buscar financiamiento por el resto del monto total previsto inicialmente. Podríamos bajar el monto del capital de la primer ronda y proponer un plan de crecimiento y objetivos más conservador y menos ambicioso.

Esto nos aumentará las chances de cerrar una ronda de financiamiento mucho más rápido, lograr los objetivos más prioritarios y urgentes en el corto plazo, y con estos resultados y métricas la compañía estaría en una posición mucho más favorable para levantar la segunda parte de la ronda, o incluso una ronda por un monto total mayor, en los próximos 9 a 12 meses.

 

Para ejemplificar vamos a contarles un caso real donde los nombres de las partes intervinientes serán omitidas.

Hace unos meses, trabajamos con una startup de la industria de recursos humanos, un claro modelo de negocio B2B con una plataforma funcionando muy bien con una base de usuarios (empresas) constituida por 5 clientes en fase de prueba gratuita, aún sin usuarios pagos.

Del equipo compuesto por 3 personas únicamente un miembro se dedicaba a tiempo completo en el proyecto.

El primer capital recibido fue por el monto de USD 50.000.- proveniente del círculo cercano (“Friends, Family and Fools”) y los recursos levantados cubrían 4 meses más. Existía incertidumbre con respecto al momento en que podrían lograr las primeras ventas.

Analizando posibles estrategias de financiamiento con el equipo emprendedor, surgió el interrogante de cómo convenía estructurar la ronda con dudas concretas, como la valuación. Si decidían buscar una inversión de USD 400.000.- (lo necesario para cubrir 18 meses de operaciones), probablemente el inversor cuestionaría el monto, planteando que la compañía primero debería validar tanto el modelo de negocio como el mercado antes de pensar en crecer. Asimismo, el equipo emprendedor no estaba dispuesto a diluirse a una valoración inferior a USD 1.000.000.- (lo cual a nuestro criterio parecía muy razonable) pero, al mismo tiempo, no resultaba tan fácil defender esa valuación con un nivel nulo de ingresos.

Otra opción era postergar la ronda unos 6 meses hasta lograr conseguir los primeros clientes pagos aunque existía el riesgo de que la compañía se quede sin combustible para seguir operando.

 

Qué hacer frente a esa situación?

Una de las alternativas que se le planteó al equipo fue salir a buscar un monto inferior (entre USD 100.000.- y USD 150.000.-) para asegurarse el combustible necesario para poder operar durante 12 a 18 meses. Con respecto a la valuación, se les sugirió que frente a la relativa urgencia que enfrentaban, era conveniente bajar la valuación a un rango de USD 600.000.- y USD 800.000.- Si bien no iba a ser imposible defender una valuación de USD 1.000.000.- basándose en factores como el producto, el equipo, el mercado, etc., considerábamos que bajar la valuación les daría mejores chances de cerrar una ronda rápido.

 

En nuestra opinión, son muchos los casos en los que resulta conveniente dividir la ronda en dos o más etapas. Esto se puede deber a una diversidad de factores como por ejemplo, que en realidad la compañía  logró validar las hipótesis necesarias para defender sólidamente la valuación que pretende el equipo, inmadurez del mercado o un mercado aún muy “joven” para encontrar capital de financiamiento para un tipo de compañía o vertical en particular, a la falta de medios de financiamiento para una etapa en particular (ej: serie A), entre otros.

 

A tener en cuenta:

  • Así como una valuación muy baja es perjudicial para el equipo, una valuación muy elevada también lo es: sin perjuicio de que se reducen las chances de que la ronda sea exitosa, el principal riesgo es que luego será mucho más difícil justificar la valuación de la serie A sí esperamos que la misma sea un multiplicador sustancial de la primer valuación. Ejemplo: será más fácil justificar con logros la transición de una valuación de USD 1.000.000.- a una valuación de USD 3.000.000.- en serie A, que pasar de USD 3.000.000.- en capital semilla a USD 7.000.000.- en serie A.

 

  • Si el emprendedor apunta a fondos VC tradicionales, no es aconsejable levantar una ronda planteando “premios” de mayor valuación por entrar antes. Ej: si entras hoy, tu valoración es de USD 500.000.-; si entras la semana que viene, es de USD 800.000.-; si entras el mes que viene, es de USD 1.000.000.-; etc. Esto pone a los managers de los fondos en una situación muy difícil porque tendrán que rendir explicaciones. De todos modos, esta es una situación que suele darse en donde el mercado de capital emprendedor está mucho más desarrollado, es más intenso y más voluminoso (ej: EEUU) que el de Argentina.

 

  • Generalmente, el “lead investor” (el inversor principal) será quien negocie con el equipo y fije los términos que van a regir para la mayoría de los inversores en la ronda. Será él quien, junto a nosotros, fije la valuación. De todas maneras, es conveniente ir preparado con un número en mente y defender coherentemente esa pretensión.

Descifrando el Venture Capital en Argentina

La historia (corta) del capital emprendedor (Capital de Riesgo, VC o Venture Capital) en América Latina es reciente y ha mostrado una evolución notable desde fines de los años 90 y principios de la década de 2000, en plena “Burbuja puntocom”.

 

En esta época los primeros referentes de Argentina daban sus primeros pasos en el mundo del Venture Capital.

  • En su momento, ElSitio.com llegó  a tener mayor valor de mercado que el grupo Pérez Companc (en aquellos días era la mayor compañía que cotizaba en la bolsa local).

 

  • Patagon, fundada por Wenceslao Casares y Constancio Larguía en 1997, había logrado capitalizar la empresa en tres oportunidades a lo largo de 2 años:
    • Primera ronda por un monto de USD 1.000.000.
    • Segunda ronda, por USD 8.000.000.
    • Última ronda, por USD 53.000.000.

Luego de esta serie de rondas de inversión, en marzo de 2000 el 75% de la compañía fue vendida al Banco Santander Central Hispano por USD 528 millones.

 

  • Fuego Inc., fundada por Félix Racca, logró obtener USD 10 millones en 1998 (luego de recorrer 120 fondos de venture capitals en EEUU y no obtener inversión alguna), para luego ser adquirida por BEA Systems Inc. (posteriormente adquirida por Oracle) en 2006 por USD 100 millones.

 

En la primera etapa de la actividad emprendedora, las ONG y el Gobierno han jugado un papel importante en la promoción del espíritu emprendedor y de la innovación.

 

Teniendo en cuenta que las economías de los países integrantes de América Latina  se encuentran en desarrollo, estos países y sus emprendedores están en modo de exploración con respecto a cómo crear, financiar y desarrollar empresas de alto potencial a nivel mundial.

 

El espíritu emprendedor logró una gran evolución en la región (la gran ventaja en Argentina es el gran recurso de emprendedores reconocidos a nivel mundial) y hay una falta de inversores institucionales dispuestos a invertir en capital de riesgo debido a que es una industria aún desconocida, lo que deja a los los fondos y sus administradores con opciones limitadas para recaudar dinero. Por lo tanto, al existir pocos actores en el ecosistema inversor, la recaudación de fondos por parte de los emprendedores se vuelve más compleja.

 

A pesar de estas complicaciones, varias iniciativas privadas (además de las impulsadas por el propio Gobierno) vieron la luz en Argentina, ocupando lugares a lo largo de todo el ciclo emprendedor y de inversión.

 

A continuación algunas iniciativas:

 

Gobierno

Fondo Semilla – Ministerio de Producción: A través de una red de incubadoras asisten aquellos emprendedores con una idea, un emprendimiento productivo o un proyecto con impacto social, ambiental y/o con perspectiva de género, a acceder a préstamos de hasta $ 250.000.-

IncuBAte – Dirección General de Emprendedores / Buenos Aires Ciudad: Ofrece acompañamiento personalizado, asistencia financiera ($ 150.000.- Equity Free) y la posibilidad de acceder a un espacio de trabajo para impulsar su emprendimiento. El programa de incubación está abierto a emprendedores nacionales e internacionales con ideas de alto impacto y aquellos que están listos para marcar la diferencia.

Fondo Fiduciario Para el Desarrollo de Capital Emprendedor (FONDCE): En el marco de la Ley N° 27.349 de Apoyo al Capital Emprendedor, cuyo objeto es apoyar la actividad emprendedora en el país, así como la generación de capital emprendedor, se ha dispuesto la creación de un Fondo Fiduciario para el Desarrollo de Capital Emprendedor (el FONDCE). El FONDCE tendrá por objeto “financiar emprendimientos e instituciones de capital emprendedor registrados como tales, en las formas y condiciones que establezca la reglamentación”. Dicho financiamiento se lleva a cabo a través del Fondo Aceleración y el Fondo Expansión, junto con aceleradoras y fondos, respectivamente. El Fondo Semilla también esta gestionado por el FONDCE.

 

Asociaciones

ARCAP – La Asociación Argentina de Capital Privado, Emprendedor y Semilla es una asociación sin fines de lucro que tiene el objetivo de promover el desarrollo de la Industria de Capital Privado en Argentina.

ASEA – La Asociación de Emprendedores de Argentina es una organización sin fines de lucro, formada por emprendedores y para emprendedores. Su misión principal es lograr que Argentina sea un mejor lugar para emprender, que resulte más ágil y sencillo llevar adelante proyectos y nuevos negocios.

Endeavor  –  Organización global que promueve emprendedores de alto impacto en más de 25 países en el mundo.

EMPREAR – ONG sin fines de lucro que promueve el desarrollo de los emprendedores de alto impacto desde su fase más temprana. Trabajando desde la detección, entrenamiento y acompañamiento a través de programas de formación, vinculación tecnológica y gestión de oportunidades para que logren construir organizaciones más innovadoras.

 

Incubadoras & Aceleradoras

CITES –  Incubadora del Grupo Sancor Seguros. Invierten en fintech, salud, biotecnología y agtech. Ofrece una inversión de hasta USD 500.000, sumado a la oportunidad de trabajar desde sus oficinas en la Provincia de Santa Fe, República Argentina.

Xpand Ventures – Aceleradora del Grupo Clarín. Invierten entre USD 50.000.- a USD 250.000.- para startups de agtech, fintech, e-commerce y media.

Eklos – Aceleradora de AB InBev. Está enfocada en la industria de consumo masivo. Ofrece inversión, oficinas y mentoría.

Glocal – Primer aceleradora latinoamericana dedicada exclusivamente a agtech que invierte entre USD 25.000.- y USD 50.000.- en el sector agroindustrial.

Wayra – Aceleradora del Grupo Telefónica. Ofrece financiamiento de hasta USD 50.000.-, espacio de trabajo, acceso a una red global de partners, mentores y expertos, más la oportunidad de trabajar con los negocios de Telefónica en el mundo.

Imagine Lab – Ofrece inversión hasta USD 100.000.-, coaching y mentoría con expertos, talleres y capacitaciones constantes para los emprendedores, un espacio de co-working. Su estrategia diferencial está basado en proponer soluciones innovadoras con sus startups junto a pequeñas y medianas empresas y corporaciones.

GridExponential –  Aceleradora de base científica.

 

Company Builders

Quasar Ventures – Construye empresas desde cero: seleccionando el equipo, la industria e invirtiendo capital. Solo realiza este proceso con 2 o 3 compañías por año.

Overboost – Como parte de su proceso, el equipo de Overboost se involucra en la vida cotidiana del proyecto; ofrecen networking para los fundadores con clientes potenciales y realizan pruebas de producto.

Incutex – Con sede en Córdoba, invierten hasta USD 100.000.- en un máximo de 3 startups por año en Argentina.

 

 

Inversores Ángeles

Club de Business Angels del IAE – El Club de Business Angels, pionero en la Argentina, está orientado a fomentar una conciencia inversora en aquellos individuos que sean capaces de aportar SMART CAPITAL (capital + conocimientos + experiencia). Antiguos Alumnos del IAE y del Centro de Entrepreneurship del IAE, buscan alentar el nacimiento de nuevos empresarios, empresas e inversores

EMPREAR Business Angels – EBA lleva más de 5 años vinculando emprendedores de alto potencial con inversores ángeles. Organiza eventos en el cual los miembros del club tienen la posibilidad de analizar 3 nuevas Startups.

Cygnus Angel Club – Cygnus Angel Club está formado por una amplia red de inversores y mentores con un sentido colaborativo.

 

Venture Capital

Kaszek Ventures – Se enfoca en compañías tecnológicas latinoamericanas de alto impacto, con especial foco en compañías de tecnología de alto impacto en Brasil. Además de capital, ofrecen también mentoría, networking, desarrollo del producto, creación de equipos y una gran cantidad de recursos para los emprendedores. Kaszek ha apoyado el crecimiento de 43 empresas en la región del Cono Sur. Su tercer fondo alcanzó los $ 200 millones.

NXTP Labs – El fondo VC de fase inicial más activo en América Latina, con operaciones en Argentina, Chile, Colombia, México y Uruguay. Han invertido en más de 174 empresas en los últimos cinco años. También ofrece programas especiales para empresas de agtech y fintech en América Latina.

CAP Ventures –  Fondo de USD $ 16M que compra participaciones minoritarias en empresas medianas con alto potencial de crecimiento en Argentina.

Patagonia Ventures –  Fondo de inversión privado con sede en Buenos Aires enfocado en negocios de Internet de alto potencial en Latinoamérica. Cuenta en su historial con 8 Exits en 21 inversiones.

Jaguar Ventures – Fondo VC de etapas tempranas centrada en empresas latinoamericanas basadas en Internet. Trabajan mano a mano con los emprendedores ayudándolos a resolver problemas operacionales mientras elaboran la visión a largo plazo de la compañía.

Cygnus Ventures  – Draper Cygnus –  Luego de trabajar en 2 fondos en etapas tempranas y aceleración se sumaron a la Draper Venture Network para lanzar el Draper Cygnus VC Fund para invertir en Series A en Startups argentinas.

Pymar Fund – Fondo VC creado por la Fundación Empresa y Crecimiento (FEC) de España con foco en compañías argentinas que sirven al mercado latinoamericano y global.

South Ventures –  Fondo VC completamente en línea con foco en compañías con crecimiento exponencial en Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, USA y España, con fundadores provenientes de Google, Harvard y MIT. Realizo co-inversiones con fondos como Sequoia, Google Ventures y Goldman Sachs.

Alaya Capital Partners – Fondo VC con el objetivo de promover, consolidar e incrementar el valor de las empresas tecnológicas en América Latina. Se encuentran asociados con Sausalito Ventures.

54 Ventures – Fondo VC enfocado en Startups de alto potencial en América Latina.

Mountain Nazca –  Fondo VC con operaciones en San Francisco, Ciudad de México, Bogotá, Buenos Aires y Santiago. Nació a partir de la unión de Nazca Ventures con Mountain Partners.

 

Si bien todos estos jugadores previamente mencionados han contribuido a desarrollar el ecosistema emprendedor muy activamente y han llevado a cabo inversiones en muchas oportunidades, actualmente nos encontramos frente al problema de existen muchas empresas “sobrevaluadas”,  un problema de suma importancia para los actores actuales del ecosistema emprendedor y para los que se quieren involucrar en la industria.

 

Este tema de suma importancia lo analizaremos en nuestro siguiente artículo, donde expondremos las problemáticas asociadas a las sobrevaluaciones, los métodos utilizados hoy en día y los cambios que se tendrían que generar para que el ecosistema siga avanzando y creciendo.

Increasing Interest of VCs in ICOs

Despite the growing concerns of regulators over the ICOs, venture capitalists (VCs) have shown increasing interest in these offerings. However, what they are more interested in is the equity stakes rather than the proceeds from coin sales. Moreover, the growth of security tokens is expected as regulators intervene.

According to the statistics by CoinDesk, the funding has increased dramatically in the blockchain based firms, and startups have managed to raise about $434 million in just 3 months since December. Although, the token industry in the United States is under the scrutiny of the Security and Exchange Commission, piqued interest by VCs is an indication that digital currency business will experience growth.

Frank Meehan, the partner in SparksLab Group, said that if a firm gets an initial coin offering, the value of his equity will increase; this is exactly what it is all about. He also added that they have invested in 6 blockchain companies. In fact, the blockchain fund of 100 million dollars that was launched at the end of 2017 is a part of the Group.

 

Betting on Blockchain Companies

As discussed, investors have increasingly funded the blockchain startups during the past three months. CoinDesk data releaved that token sales have surged and startups raised funds of over $3 billion via ICOs during the first 2 months of 2018. It is more than 50 percent of what they raised in 2017.

According to the statistics by TokenData, last year 46 percent of the token startups either suffered from failure after the offering or could not complete funding. It further revealed that so far in 2018, a total of 50 startups have failed out of 340. There is no surprise as to why the failure rate is so high. After all, it is just a white paper and many of the products they are offering are not even functional – the technology has not even been tested on a mass scale.

 

VCs Are Cautious About Investing Too Much Too Soon

Therefore, some investors would wait for these firms to mature, while waiting for the decision regulatory authorities might take in future. Investors are looking for established companies, which means startups should raise money to fund their marketing and developing activities.

A managing director of Insight Venture Partners, Lonne Jaffe, acknowledged it by saying that it is a good time for them to be cautious, as they won’t be missing out on anything big. He furthered it by saying that they will start investing once firms begin to scale up; they have also been communicating with their portfolio firms about how they can serve the startups and use blockchain technology. He also revealed that they have a total of $18 billion in raised-capital for over 300 firms, which also includes Twitter Inc.

 

Pressure from the Regulators?

Although, there is a well-established regime by the regulatory authorities, the regulations for initial coin offerings are still evolving. The Treasury Department in the United States issued a letter on March 6, in which, it was stated that issue tokens will be considered as money transmitters; they will be required to follow the know-your-customer and bank secrecy guidelines.

Jay Clayton, the Chairman of SEC said that every offering he has come across is a security, even if token startups believe they are not. In fact, last month in March, Google, Facebook, and Twitter joined hands to ban advertisements for coin sales and ICOs. Also, the leading digital currency, Bitcoin, reduced in value by 8.7 percent.

Investors are interested to purchase security tokens with some kind of security attached in the form of equity or other assets as it will serve as a cushion in case there is some kind of regulatory shock in the future.

The co-founder of Securitize.io, Jamie Finn, has revealed that they plan to raise billions and have more than 100 startups in the pipeline. They provide a platform to issue tokens that have some sort of backing, such as company revenue or equity.

Currently, there is hardly any exchange that trades security tokens. An SEC-registered broker-dealer, Templum LLC, has been offering this service. It is an alternative trading system.

Besides, compared to a conventional startup equity that remains tied up for years, tokens backed by equity are traded more easily. Finn also added that after the end of lockdown, a person can even sell the equity-backed tokens. Moreover, one can easily purchase and sell them online. Similarly, family offices can directly invest in these securities rather than investing via funds.

Venture Capital Deals in 2017

2017 turned out to be quite a success for startups as they managed to receive over 67 billion dollars in venture capital funding, broking the previous record of 2015 by 5 percent.

Although, there has been substantial funding in Silicon Valley during the past few years, the overall investment has reduced since 2015. There has been a decline of 12 percent and it’s partially because of Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. as these companies secured the maximum funding in 2017. Snap Inc. got a funding of 1.8 billion dollars, whereas Uber secured 3.5 billion dollars in 2016, and the value of capital received in 2017 decreased. Another reason was the fact that some of the major deals happened elsewhere last year.

 

The Value of Deal Based on Metropolitan Statistical Area

If you look at the trend based on metropolitan areas, San Francisco was in the lead, but as discussed, the overall value has declined since 2015. Similarly, the investment in Boston and Los Angeles has also decreased; it was 6.2 billion dollars and 4.9 billion dollars for Boston and Los Angeles in 2015, but in 2017, the amount reduced to 5.9 billion and 3.9 billion respectively.

On the other hand, the funding in New York, San Jose, Washington D.C., and Chicago increased. In 2015, Chicago secured 0.9 billion dollar investment, which eventually increased to about 1.5 billion dollars in 2017. Washington experienced a mild increased from $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion and San Jose increased from 6.5 billion dollars to 6.9 billion dollars. The investment in New York however, almost doubled since 2015. It was 7.8 billion dollars in 2015, but in 2017, the overall value increased to 13.3 billion dollars.

On the other hand, the funding value also increased in Miami, Philadelphia, Provo, Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Minneapolis. The biggest reason for the sharp increase in the funding value in New York was the massive infusion of money in WeWork Companies Inc. The company got a capital of about 6 billion dollars in 2017, which eventually led to the sudden increase in the overall funding.

 

2017 Top 10 Deals

After WeWork, the second biggest deal in 2017 was Lyft in San Francisco, the company secured 2 billion dollars in funding. Other deals in San Francisco that made their way to the Top 10 included Uber with $1.25 billion, GRAIL with $0.9 billion, and SoFi with $0.5 billion.

Beside that, Admiral Permian Resources in Midland secured 0.6 billion dollars, Magic Leap in Miami got a capital of 502 million dollars, Outcome Health got 500 million, and SpaceX got 450 million dollars. Another company in New York that made its way to the Top 10 was Compass that secured a capital of 0.55 billion dollars.

All in all, startups in many regions of the U.S. managed to get funding as compared to 2015. In 2017, around 141 metropolitan areas got capital in a total of 48 states, whereas, it was 119 areas of 43 states back in 2015.

 

Size of Deals

The value of investment received by companies also increased over the years. Although, the total number of deals has declined since 2015, the overall deal value increased by 3 billion dollars. If you look at the average size of a deal, it was 25.5 million dollars in 2017. This has been the highest so far in history. The average size in 2015 was 21.5 million dollars.

The average size of a seed stage investment was also high, i.e., 13.8 million dollars in 2017. It was $11.9 million in 2015. The early stage deals represented almost 33 percent of the total venture capital volume. The value of late-stage deals, however, has declined since 2013.

 

Number of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)

The number of IPOs deals around the world was the highest since 2007, but there were only a few IPOs in the United States that were backed by the VCs. There were only 28 companies that went public in 2017, which was quite low as compared to 2015.

Moreover, some of the biggest companies couldn’t perform well in 2017; the 3 largest IPOs showed negative returns. Snap Inc. , the second biggest IPO, showed very poor returns.

To summarize, the VC environment has experienced ups and downs over the years, but the overall trends have been declining with the passage of time.

2017’s Industry Recap and 2018 Hottest Industries for Venture Capital

According to KPMG´s Venture Capital market report, it experienced the highest amount of investment in the U.S. in 2017. The total amount of investment in this sector was over $84 billion last year. Although, the deal value increased from $21.24 billion in the third quarter to $23.75 billion in the fourth quarter, the overall deal volume experienced decline as it fell from a total of 1997 to 1778 deals. The reason for the decline was growing interest of investors in smaller companies with profitable prospects instead of placing bigger bets on large companies.

 

Sneak-peak at 2017

The investors in the United States were mainly focused on late-stage deals during 2017. This eventually lead to the decrease in deals with other funding levels. Seed and angel deals were the ones that got affected the most as they suffered a decline from 50 percent in 2016 to 47 percent in 2017.

Biotech and healthcare were two sectors that stood out among the rest, especially during the fourth quarter when a number of large deals were successfully completed. Healthcare sector was also at the top in terms of exits, which triggered an increased activity overall.

The late-stage deals hit $250 million in the last quarter of 2017, which was very high as compared to $135 million a year before that. Companies that raised funds of over billion dollars were Cancer-screening biotech Grail Technology that raised $1.2 billion and Ride-hailing company Lyft that managed to get $1.5 billion.

 

Expected Trend in 2018

The trend seems quite optimistic as it will build momentum, especially via strong exit markets in Mergers and Acquisition and Initial Public Offering (IPO) for companies backed by venture capital.

At this time, it isn’t sure whether 2018 will have a record number of IPOs as experienced in 2015 or not, but this year will definitely have an increasing number of IPO activities. The co-lead partner of KPMG VC practice, Conor Moore, was of the opinion that as more firms are deciding to remain private in the long run, the secondary market is sure to experience more growth.

Following are some of the prominent sectors investors are likely to invest their money in:

 

Blockchain Technology

Instead of investing directly in the cryptocurrency, investors are inclined to invest in underlying blockchain technology. The reason is simple; the prices of digital currencies have skyrocketed. Investors are trying to find creative ways to make profitable investments.

A partner in Canvas Ventures, Rebecca Lynn, is looking for firms that use blockchain to build their infrastructure, especially the ones that store health records and track trademarked and copyrighted licensing rights and content.

 

Artificial Intelligence Businesses

Investors are searching for tangible business ideas. For example, David Pakman, a partner in Venrock, is in search of startups that will be using Artificial Intelligence so as to assist companies in making decisions that were previously taken by the people; it includes preparing manufacturing instructions for machines, sales planning, and the hiring process.

 

Pop-up Stores

With the rapidly increasing concept of driver-less cars, startup companies are in for a treat. Venture capital firms, such as the Fifth Wall are offering a short-term lease for pop-up stores, including parking lots. Some startups that can benefit from this are Katerra (a construction company), Kasita.com (the firm that makes modular housing units), and Factory OS (a company that makes modular buildings).

 

Voice-centric Devices

These devices have taken the market by storm. This has encouraged startup companies to seek new opportunities to use voice, including advertising. It has been predicted by WIRED that new firms with creative solutions are expected to do really well in 2018, which makes it an attractive sector for venture capitalists.

 

Subscription-based Products

In the last few years, VC firms were drawn to digital media startup companies, such as Vox media, BuzzFeed, Mashable, Mic, and many more. However, some of these companies have undergone layoffs in recent times. This has eventually made the investors move on to subscription-based products, such as Patreon. In September last year, this company raised around 60 million dollars.

Another example is Medium, which raised over 130 million dollars from VC firms. This company has shifted to a subscription-based model just recently.

Will 2018 Mark the End of Initial Public Offerings?

2017 turned out to be a great year for technology-based IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) that were backed by venture capital.

So many names in a corporate world went public last year, including SendGrid, StitchFix, BlueApron, Cloudera, and Yext. In fact, one of the most successful IPOs in the last few years was Snapchat. In 2018, there are some potential firms that are likely to go public, which is great because the Dow and S&P 500 are at the record high.

 

Beginning of the End for IPOs?

However, dark clouds have started to form on a distant horizon regarding IPOs. Spotify will probably go for direct listing and bypass the bank underwriting to go public. On the other hand, blockchain technology is booming and has attracted many retail investors, especially the ones who are skeptical about the IPOs and the corruption in this sector. Similarly, SoftBank Vision Fund is also trying to raise as much private capital as possible to provide protection to firms from the devastating effect of vulture funds.

There is an increasing awareness that current IPO sector is a hub of corruption, wherein, only those people are benefiting from the firms growth cycle who know the ‘right people’. The retail investors, however, are on the losing end as they are getting sufficient returns. This growing awareness is not going to subside, especially when there is a constant increase viability of other options.

 

Robust Technology – An Alternative to Conventional IPO

The fall of IPOs has been predicted so many times in the past, but it hasn’t happened yet. Ten or so years back when Google went for a Dutch-style IPO, so many people anticipated that it could a soon-to-be-ending road for banks who want to run a roadshow for investors. Similarly, a few years ago, when the pipeline of initial offerings dried up, the same hype was created.

Despite all the noise, the IPO has continued to provide good business. Although, firms will continue to go public by trading shares or securities, they are undergoing certain changes. For example, conventional ways of big banks to charge a huge fee is going to be replaced by more effective alternatives. So many bankers have already begun to lose their jobs after the introduction of technology. Goldman Sachs has already built an application that manages the IPO process. These steps are being taken to enhance the efficiency of operations.

There are only a few who have anticipated that IPOs will get a support of ethereum tokens and the Dutch East India company. However, no one can deny the fact that IPOs are growing weaker day by day, and they won’t survive in the long run if drastic measures are not taken.

 

Spotify’s Direct Listing

The company has managed to secure around 70 million paying subscribers, but at the same time, its chief content officer has resigned. In addition to that, the company is also dealing with some lawsuits filed by the music labels, which can be very damaging in the future.

Despite all the ups and downs, the news has come to light that Spotify is planning to go public via the direct listing. By undergoing direct listing, the company will not issue any new shares nor will it raise any capital through the process. For IPOs, this arrangement can be very devastating as financial institutions like Goldman Sachs will become deprived of underwriting fees, whereas, institutional investors will lose an opportunity to buy IPO shares at a huge discount like they did in the past.

Although, a direct listing of Spotify will be a little bumpy, it doesn’t mean that the process will end in disaster. The rise of digital trading based on algorithms will help Spotify stabilize the price after analyzing the market. The process will be executed as fast as it does for other initial offerings.

 

Increasing Trend of ICOs

Another disruptive disaster expected to happen is the rising trend of ICOs. Initial coin offerings or ICOs are being considered as a replacement for VCs. The rush of initial coin offerings among startup companies has placed a big question mark on the existence of IPOs. ICO model might not be applicable to every company, but being a competitive threat to IPO, they do not necessarily have to apply to every firm.

All in all, IPO is facing back to back attacks; a direct public offering will dramatically reduce the fees involved in conventional IPO, whereas, ICO will be an effective tool for potential financial growth. These disruptive tools are definitely going to rule out the need to go public so as to achieve financial strength, which would eventually impact the long-term sustenance of IPOs.

Venture Capital Sector Facing Challenges in the Era of Cryptocurrency

In the past couple of years, cryptocurrency has experienced a sudden boom and is now making news in every sector. In the beginning, when bitcoin was in its initial stages, everybody was talking about Venture Capital (VC) and how it is going to benefit the small businesses.

So many venture capitalists made money by investing in innovative ideas that eventually materialized into unicorns. Instead of investing in the digital currency like bitcoins, investors preferred to invest in the companies, such as Coinbase or 21.co.

 

Bitcoin Price at All Times High

Some of these firms performed better than the other. For example, Coinbase ended up being in the first place in the app store of Apple last December as a result of hype over bitcoin. On the other hand, 21 kept changing its names and business plans. Back when Coinbase got its first round of funding from VCs, its price was about $110. However, recently, it has managed to reach $19,000.

An investment associate in the Digital Currency Group, Travis Scher, was of the opinion that had investors invested in the cryptocurrency instead of investing in digital currency firms, they would’ve gotten much higher returns by now.

 

VCs and the Increasing Trend of ICOs

This isn’t easy to grasp as it complicates the core idea of VCs.

The conventional way of making an investment was to find out the rising trend in technology, identify the targets that were in line with those trends and were in a better position to make it big, and then taking a profitable exit as soon as those companies were either sold out or went public.

But it won’t be an effective strategy for digital currencies like bitcoin. In fact, as more and more cryptocurrencies have entered the market, it has become even more confusing and complex. The community of dreamers, and entrepreneurs have been raising money via ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings), wherein, they create their own digital currencies, sell them for money and trade them in the open market.

When it comes to venture capital firms, they offer the investors an unrestricted access to private companies that are not publicly listed. Therefore, the question is, where will these venture capital companies go, if ICOs become a strong medium for people to get a bit of hot technology.

 

Venture Capitalists and their New Tactics

Venture capitalists have been devising new tactics to deal with the frenzy of cryptocurrency. Instead of seeking a stake in the digital currency firm, they have started purchasing the rights to acquire tokens ahead of initial coin offerings via legal contracts. In addition to that, they are improvising conventional equity deals, offering guarantees to investors in terms of getting tokens if a startup company goes for ICO in the future.

Some investors have also invested directly in bitcoin for years. The founder of VC firm Social Capital, Chamath Palihapitiya, said that he, along with his partners, invested in 5 percent of the bitcoin in circulation and still hold a reasonable stake in the currency.

 

Increasing Risks Faced by Investors in the Digital Currency Market

Although, the cryptocurrency market is rapidly growing, yet, it is not without risk. In fact, so many investors have suffered from hacking attacks and have also been threatened physically.

Threats are very real and harmful, because bitcoin will be lost forever if somebody steals it.

 

Cryptocurrency Hedge Funds and Futures Tokens

So many VC firms, including Sequoia Capital, Union Square Venture, and Andreessen Horowitz have made an investment in digital currency hedge funds in order to benefit from the boom without worrying about managing these currencies. They earn profits by trading dabble, litecoin, ethereum, and bitcoin in the ICOs market.

Some of the big names in the world of VC, including Bain Capital Venture, Union Square Ventures, and Sequoia Capital, have entered the deals to acquire digital tokens. For that, they are using legal agreements called “Simple Agreements for Future Tokens” also known as SAFT. Andreessen Horowitz is also taking steps to include provisions in standard contracts for investments in order to properly address ICOs.

According to a research website, in 2017, startup companies made about $3.6 billion in ICOs. This, however, is nothing in comparison to the $52.6 billion earned by VCs from around the world, as stated in the report by CB Insights and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Despite that, investors are inclined toward ICOs as it enables them to make millions in short span of time as compared to VC investments, which take years before you can reap the return.

Rising Trend of Initial Coin Offerings

According to a report by Mangrove Capital, 204 ICOs have made a return of about 1,320 percent.

At the same time, investment banks and hedge funds have shown increasing interest in the digital currency with over 55 crypto-specific hedge funds. Before diving deep into why investors are showing greater interest in cryptocurrency, let’s take a look at what ICO is.

 

What is ICO?

Unlike conventional financial system, ICO or Initial Coin Offering is an alternative and unconventional way of crowdfunding. It has enabled a number of successful firms and projects to get the finance to start their business. New businesses and startups around the globe are getting millions of dollars in funds by issuing digital coins. The rising trend of digital currency has made people both worried and excited.

In ICO, the coins bought by investors are for businesses and marketplaces that are not developed yet. By purchasing these coins, they make a bet that a firm or startup will end up becoming successful and as a result, the coin will increase in value.

In average it takes about six months or a year to raise money with conventional venture capital (VC) system, but it is different when it comes to ICOs. In this token crowdfunding, you get to have a large crowd of engaging supporters who want to see you succeed. Not only do they campaign for you, but they are also your early adopters.

 

Growing Trend of ICO

Startups have raised more than 2 billion dollars since the start of 2017. It is a huge amount of funding, given the fact that not many people knew about it a few years ago. Businesses are making money via this mode of funding faster than usual.

In April this year, Gnosis (prediction market for Ethereum) managed to raise 12 million dollars in just ten minutes. In June, Mozilla’s founder raised 35 million dollars by selling Basic Attention Tokens in under 30 seconds for his new web browser startup called ‘Brave’.

ICOs have become the name of the game as they have left the venture capital market behind and are the biggest source of funding. It is a great option for those companies that are pursuing the application of blockchain technology.

 

Concerns by the Regulators

Despite the increasing trends of ICOs, regulators have shown serious concerns. They are warning investors that it is a high-risk investment.

Although, some coins value has dramatically increased, a very high volatility cannot be ignored. Some have also considered it a ‘speculative boom’, but that did not stop investment banks and hedge funds from showing their interest by making an investment in cryptocurrencies and ICOs.

 

Reason behind the Increasing Interest of Institutional Investors in ICOs

The digital currency market has made massive profits in the past one year or so. Initially, institutional investors were curious about what this is all about, but they started getting a hang of it gradually and became less apprehensive and more interested in this alternative investment. It is a kind of chain reaction that started with the rising interest among venture capitalists and now institutional investors, including mutual funds, investment banks, and hedge funds are following their lead. They have shown growing interest and are making an effort to estimate and grab the opportunities in the cryptocurrency market.

The reason why they are more interested in the new and unconventional currency is that it promises a higher return as compared to market averages. According to a fintech analytics firm, there have been at least 55 cryptocurrency hedge funds and a former manager at Fortress, Mike Novogratz, has recently announced a plan to use 500 million dollars for a new digital currency hedge fund. Blockchain Capital also made an announcement of raising 150 million dollars; a part of this fund will be for cryptocurrencies.

 

Goldman Sachs’ Approval

Goldman Sachs is planning to set up a bitcoin trading desk, as they believe that institutional investors are interested in cryptocurrency more than ever. The firm has reported it to be ‘a major milestone’. They believe that the investors need an over-the-counter brokerage platform where they can sell or buy as much cryptocurrency as they want. Goldman Sachs is of the opinion that it can take up this role, but there will be other issues, including market infrastructure and serious concern by the regulators.

 

If, however, ICOs becomes regulated, it will change the way how businesses raise money and will also impact the venture capital market.

A Useful Funding Tool for Less Segregated and Diverse Communities

Communities with a mixed ethnic background and more diversity are likely to come up with new ideas. According to a study by the Yale School of Management, having people in a community with different backgrounds is beneficial for Venture Capital (VC) firms as it leads to economic development and innovation.

In various countries around the globe, communities, universities, and businesses are pursuing diversification. Apart from the immediate benefit of getting fairness, having multiple points of view and diversity of experience is very useful for the overall performance of these sectors.

 

Effect of VC on Integrated Communities

The study also revealed that VC investment is more beneficial for ethnically integrated communities as compared to segregated communities. The effect of VC on the integrated communities was 30 percent higher as compared to segregated ones, especially in terms of creating more wealth, jobs, entrepreneurship opportunities, and facilitating innovative activities. The startup businesses create more value and job opportunities that eventually lead to economic growth.

In a diverse community, you get to interact with people having diverse backgrounds, which leads to getting access to more resources and information as compared to segregated communities. In the past, studies have shown that economic vitality is enhanced as a result of social interaction within a community.

 

Implications of Social Interaction for Venture Capital

The purpose of the study in question was to identify whether a social structure is vital for economic development or not. The VC was the focus of this study, given the fact that it is a useful financial tool for high growth businesses.

It was revealed that such relationships have significant implications when it comes to VC investments. VC investors put their money in new businesses that are in the close vicinity. They tend to rely on professional relationships and friendships for leads and information that cannot be received via cold calls or internet search.

VC investments were compared to aggregate income, employment, new businesses, and a number of patents. It was found that VC performed much better in less segregated and diverse areas, resulting in more patents, more jobs, and created more value.

Social interaction has benefited various communities. One of the many factors that led to high level of innovation in the United States is the increasing number of immigrants that bring diverse culture. When they interact with one another, it creates room for transferring valuable information and ideas, which leads to better economic outcomes. Besides, when people from different ethnic backgrounds live close to one another, it brings about healthy relationships and effective interactions that is favorable for the wider economy.

 

Diversity Leads to Innovative Thinking

Diversity is also very useful to promote innovative thinking that leads to success in the venture capital market. Any sector that does not have diversity or mixed race is very limited in innovative mindset and thought process. This results in similar thinking with not many innovative ideas. In addition to that, there is gender bias in the VC sector that restricts the overall growth prospects. It is a widely known fact that female founders represent the rapidly growing entrepreneurial group in the United States and their firm’s experience growth 1.5 times faster than the average growth rate in the market.

 

Providing Solution to Promote Innovative Decision Making

Despite the lack of diversity, it is quite likely that change is taking place gradually. An increasing number of entrepreneurs with diverse background are entering into the market. They are focused on providing a solution to the problem and make a profit in the process.

It has become really important to promote diversity in the communities and in societies at large so as to promote economic development and prosperity. Not only will it be beneficial for the venture capital industry, but it is also going to help the masses in getting equal opportunities in every sector.

 

The venture capital market has also derived benefits from diverse communities in terms of innovative thinking and plethora of useful information. To continue moving in the right direction, countries around the globe should embrace diversity in order to have successful businesses and create more job opportunities that will eventually bring economic prosperity in the long run.