SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/20/2002 3:32:30 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 57684
 
The Reflation Trade

speculative-investor.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/20/2002 3:54:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Venture Capital: Back to 1990

The coming year will look like 1990, with just 50 funds raising $2.5 billion, or less than 5 percent of what they raised in 2000. But guess what? There won't be a shakeout in venture capital. That said, pity the late-stage companies.

By Julie Landry
The Red Herring
December 16, 2002

Why It Will (Won't) Happen
Hold that schadenfreude--2003 won't see scores of venture capital firms closing their doors or returning the piles of cash they're sitting on. The bulk of money raised during the bubble came from strong, established firms, rather than new, weaker ones. These established VC firms existed before the boom and will still be around after the bust. Even struggling firms need only one deal that hits it big to return something--or at least break even--on a fund. Plus, the unwinding of a VC firm happens gradually, if it happens at all.


Between 1996 and 2001, the number of VC firms in the United States jumped from 422 to 669. And by design, venture funds are tougher to kill than the Wicked Witch of the West--no amount of cold water will make them melt away. When a new fund is raised, it has seven to ten years to make investments, exit those investments, and distribute the profits to its limited partners (LPs). So, at least in theory, a firm that started in, say, 1999 will be around until 2006. VCs can survive because every firm, no matter how bad, collects a healthy fee to manage its funds--generally around 2 percent of the fund's dollar value.

Still, in 2002, at least a dozen top-tier firms, including Atlas Venture; Charles River Ventures; and Mohr, Davidow Ventures, cut the size of their most recent funds, each of which had hovered around $1 billion. They returned several billion dollars in committed capital to LPs and often laid off partners to reflect their consequently lower management fees. But in 2003, don't expect too many other firms to return uncommitted capital, the total of which is estimated to be $100 billion. Instead, look for firms to use this money in lieu of raising additional funds.

What It Means
The coming year will be tough for startups. Expect the bulk of that $100 billion to be sunk into late-stage companies, spin-offs, and public companies, which these days are often valued as low as any new startup. This is good news for cash-rich VCs. On the cheap they can fund an enterprise that has a much longer track record and is closer to reaching success than an equally valued risky startup.

"Until they stop giving away late-stage companies, there won't be a lot of logic to pursuing very early-stage deals," says one early-stage investor who asked to remain anonymous.

But late-stage companies won't have it easy either, says Tracy Lefteroff, global managing partner of the VC practice in PricewaterhouseCoopers's Global Technology Industry Group. He says a flood of firms that raised their last rounds in 2000--about 11,800 companies, according to the research firm Venture Economics--will be returning to VCs for new money in 2003. Only those with a very short timeline to profitability stand a chance of raising that next round. So expect a new wave of company closures in 2003.

On the Horizon
For the most part, then, 2003 will be the year of the tortoise: companies and venture firms will trudge toward the finish line, that elusive liquidity event on the horizon. Slow and steady is fine, especially since there aren't any hares in the race. But by 2004, expect VCs and their LPs to get restless and pick up their feet. Industry observers estimate that 80 percent of the established, well-respected VC firms will be hitting up LPs for capital for new funds in 2004 or 2005.

Kelly Williams, a director at the investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston, says she and other managers of funds like hers have been disappointed with the quality of firms raising money in 2001 and 2002, and they look forward to top firms returning to the fund-raising market. VC firms that are seeking their third or later fund are in good shape because they have a prebubble track record by which LPs can assess their odds for positive returns (see "Marking Time"). These new funds will then act as a clean slate for fund-raising, allowing firms more flexibility to invest in early-stage companies.

redherring.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/20/2002 4:01:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Hardware/Software: The virtualizer

The technologies around virtualization, an umbrella term for a collection of technologies that allow a corporation's IT infrastructure to exist as one seamless unit, get their finishing touches and become all the rage for chief information officers worldwide.

By Om Malik
Red Herring Prediction
December 16, 2002

Why It Will Happen
The morning after a good party, everyone needs a quick hangover fix. The technology industry is no different. After five years of spending wildly on new equipment, be it servers from Sun Microsystems, routers from Cisco Systems, or storage systems from EMC, the tech heads at most Fortune 500 companies are searching for a way to make all the equipment work together.


In 2003, different storage systems, servers, and network devices will begin to be managed through a central console, or "technology management system," based on virtualization, a partitioning technique that allows multiple and independent operating environments to use a single set of resources. High-end Sun servers, for instance, will coexist with low-cost blade servers from the likes of Egenera, and both types of servers will be called upon to do all sorts of computational tasks.

The impetus for this trend is economic--computing resources aren't being fully utilized, and IT budgets are tight. Take the former: IBM data shows that server utilization is a mere 40 percent of the total installed capacity--in other words, up to 60 percent of an email server's total power can potentially be exploited to perform other tasks, like intranet hosting or even printing.

Virtualization reduces capital expenditures (no need to buy new equipment) and the cost of managing IT equipment. A company pays $1 per megabyte to acquire hard disk storage, but must cough up an additional $8 per megabyte each year to manage that storage, according to a study by Strategic Research, a technology research firm. Servers are no different: a handful of Hewlett-Packard servers cost less than $50,000, but a full-time administrator to keep those machines running around the clock costs $75,000 per year.

The concept of virtualization isn't new. It was part of mainframe computing in the '80s. It has gathered steam because of the rise of network computing and the ability to share resources easily. Virtualization appeared in the storage industry in early 2000, as chief information officers began searching for ways to add cheap storage systems to their networks while treating them as one physical unit. Storage startups like 3ParData and FalconStor were founded to cash in on that opportunity.

Since then, storage virtualization has gained enough momentum that a company like Sun, traditionally a storage laggard, deemed it necessary to buy the storage-networking company Pirus Networks in September for a rumored $150 million. With Pirus, Sun hopes to make its enterprisewide virtualization effort, called N1, a reality in 2003. Sooner or later, all Sun products, including storage and servers, will have embedded software that makes virtualization easy. After seeing its revenue get hammered by the technology bust, Sun may be in a good position to take advantage of a market for storage virtualization products.

By developing quasi-operating systems that help manage the entire IT infrastructure, software startups like Ensim, Jareva Technologies, Plexus, and Think Dynamics have demonstrated that virtualization is a workable concept. Now it is the turn of larger players, like Cisco, IBM, and Sun, to develop a broader range of software and hardware.

"The benefits are pretty simple. Virtualization enables the infrastructure to become 'liquid'--able to react to unknown requirements. But the reality is that the concept requires more work, and that means time, effort, and money," says Steve Duplessie, senior analyst with the Enterprise Storage Group, a storage-industry research firm. This means only Cisco, IBM, and Sun have the dollars to spend on virtualization efforts. Sun has its N1 initiative. IBM has its Project eLiza and Oceana projects. And Cisco has tweaked its product lines to meet the needs of a virtualized enterprise.

What It Means
The technology industry will receive a badly needed boost. Old equipment will get a second lease on life. Managing disparate technology will become cheaper. And CIOs will look like heroes.

redherring.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/20/2002 4:05:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Wireless: Carried away

Until now, wireless local area networks have been just another grass roots, hobbyist technology--the purview of home-networking enthusiasts and risk-taking IT managers. But all of that will change in 2003, as the major international wireless carriers roll out high-speed local networks. Paradoxically, this both threatens and assures the future of 3G--the heretofore heir to the wireless throne.

By Dan Briody
Red Herring Prediction
December 16, 2002

Why It Will Happen
Wireless local area networks (WLANs), known more economically as wi-fi, or 802.11 in geek speak, are high-speed wireless networks with a radius of about 150 feet. They operate just like ethernet (the technology that links most PCs in business offices), but without wires, creating--say, in airports and cafÈs--hot spots that let computers, handhelds, and cell phones connect to the Internet. The secret to wi-fi's success is simple: it's fast, cheap, and available today.


T-Mobile is making the biggest bet by far of all the major carriers, taking the assets of MobileStar Network, the bankrupt wi-fi provider it picked up through its VoiceStream Wireless acquisition, and lighting up nearly 2,000 hot spots at Starbucks locations worldwide over the next year. Other carriers are still dipping their toes in the water, taking a more cautious approach. Sprint, among others, invested $15 million in a Series A round of financing for Boingo Wireless, a wi-fi service provider, and AT&T Wireless is setting up a trial network at Denver International Airport. But this early timidity will vanish in 2003, as carriers take advantage of wi-fi's explosive growth.

Adding to the excitement is the introduction by Microsoft of a wi-fi home-networking kit and wi-fi capabilities in its future operating systems, as well as the news of a beefy consortium code-named Project Rainbow, leaked to the press in summer. The clandestine intent of the group--made up of AT&T Wireless, IBM, Intel, and Verizon--is to create a company that would roll out a massive nationwide wi-fi network commencing sometime next year.

Regardless of how such a network gets built, the rapid spread of wi-fi is a virtual certainty. Market analysts predict growth in the wi-fi hardware market of more than 70 percent next year. The number of public hot spots in major cities, currently a few thousand, is expected to double next year. It is a technology on a roll.

What It Means
In the short term, the rise of wi-fi will have a detrimental effect on the rollout of next-generation, or 3G, wireless technology, which is more expensive, slower, and less available. WLANs provide speeds of 11 Mbps, soon to get bumped up to 54 Mbps--approximately 20 times the speed that 3G could potentially offer. A typical hot spot costs less than $200, compared with the $500,000 to $1 million cost of a 3G base station. With a comparison like that, wireless carriers are kicking themselves, wishing they had known about wi-fi before they spent $100 billion on 3G spectrum.

Some portion of the carriers' money, then, will start to move away from traditional 3G infrastructure and into WLAN equipment. Yet the world will still need 3G to fill in the gaps between hot spots, which are likely to be pretty large. After all, no one is under the impression that the entire world will be covered by WLANs, 150 feet at a time. While carriers believe that wi-fi will eat into their 3G revenue, it will not eliminate that revenue altogether. And in fact, the success of WLANs proves a much larger point: wireless data is in high demand, and wi-fi will whet consumers' appetite for 3G. "Once people get a taste for this thing, they get addicted," says Steve Hodges, vice president of corporate strategy at AT&T Wireless. "There is even some value in wi-fi, in that it cuts down our costs in deploying 3G infrastructure."

Carriers like British Telecom, Sprint, and T-Mobile are in the perfect position to offer both wireless services, combine the billing and customer service, and walk away with a more effective, if less elegant, solution to providing wireless data--while maintaining their death grip on customers. But don't expect wi-fi to goose carriers' revenue all that much--the economics are not particularly attractive. Many consumers are used to getting the service for free and don't want to pay much more than that. The same holds true for wi-fi service providers like Boingo, which either sell their service to the major carriers or offer it directly to consumers. Aside from going public (eek!) or being acquired, it's not clear where they will get their revenue. Just like the ISPs of today, the wireless service business is not a heavy-profit enterprise. There will be a great deal of competition, driving prices ever lower.

Rather, wi-fi hardware companies are poised to make real money. Equipment will fly off the shelves when carriers belly up to the wi-fi bar. That means base stations and spectrum will become less important--sorry Ericsson, looks like more trouble ahead--and 802.11 semiconductors, wi-fi service providers, and good old-fashioned T-1 lines, which carry the data from the wi-fi base unit to the Internet, will become more important.


redherring.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/20/2002 6:22:17 PM
From: Bill Harmond  Respond to of 57684
 
Online ad market warming up

infoworld.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/21/2002 12:30:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 57684
 
Protect Thyself

By Michael Copeland
Venture Capital Journal
December 1, 2002

Deny it all you want, but the world of venture capital has changed. From a gang of investors and entrepreneurs who were joined at the hip, it has grown into an industry that requires nametags. As Morgenthaler Ventures' Bob Pavey puts it: "We are an asset class now, heaven forbid."

That mature designation is the inevitable result of the unprecedented influx of new money into venture funds in the past several years, which spawned more and larger venture funds beholden to a far greater number of limited partners. With that maturation has come a price: In the past, when the market turned down, most members of the venture capital club attacked the bad times by helping to build the next great startup that would carry everyone back to profitability. You didn't dare burn a bridge because you would probably need (or at least run into) that LP, GP or entrepreneur down the road. Today that sentiment is gone. Members of the venture capital industry are now more inclined to confront economic problems by attacking each other through litigation and other measures-whether it's an LP suing a GP, an entrepreneur suing his backers, a GP suing another GP or a public LP breaking nondisclosure agreements.

Reid Dennis, a founder of Institutional

Venture Partners and an investor throughout the history of venture capital, says he's never seen anything like it. "The lawsuits that we are seeing now, that's a new phenomenon," says Dennis, 76. "In previous downturns, people felt that lawsuits were counterproductive. It has always been much more profitable to go and find the next investment than try and find money by filing a lawsuit. One of the things driving these lawsuits is people who have given up on investing. Suing is a way of shifting the blame from your own stupidity to someone else's."

On its face, Dennis' take on what's going on appears to be on the money. But, it could be argued that the rules that applied in the clubby days of VC just don't apply to the massive industry it has grown into-and the weight of the financial stakes. For example, Benchmark Capital sued Canadian International Bank of Commerce (CIBC) this past summer, alleging that CIBC and portfolio company Juniper Financial conspired to wipe out $115 million worth of investments in Juniper by Benchmark and other investors. It was the first suit Benchmark ever filed. Some will argue Benchmark should've just walked away from the $25 million loss that it personally suffered and focus all its energy on new deals. But at what point is the loss so large that it can't be ignored?

Josh Lerner, a Harvard professor who has studied private equity extensively, says the most recent downturn in the VC industry will have a lasting impact. The most profound shift, and something that will touch everyone in the business, is disclosure, he says. Venture capitalists, like those in other mature asset classes, must be prepared to make their financial activity more transparent. "In some ways venture capital has operated as a private club for a long time," Lerner says. "I can't help but think that opening it up to greater transparency and clarifying it in the long run will very much benefit the industry and reward investors."

Like, Lerner, U.C. Berkeley Business Prof. Andrew Isaacs sees an upside to the skirmishes that have broken out on the venture capital landscape. "The outcome will be a clearer understanding between LPs and GPs and other participants in the industry," says Isaacs, executive director of Berkeley's Management of Technology Program. "What you will see are better contracts, clearer contracts and an adjustment of expectations, not an adjustment of modus operandi."

Isaacs points out that those who play in the venture capital arena are among the most sophisticated investors out there. "These are not FDIC-approved investments, and all parties have their eyes wide open-they always have," he says. "But having eyes wide open in the future will be accompanied by thicker documents."

Some VCs would certainly take issue with Lerner and Isaacs' positive spin on these recent developments. But for now, it appears that the old rules of VC don't apply in this new world, and the safe bet for VCs, their investors and portfolio companies is to operate under the assumption that the venture world will never go back to its hand-shake roots. For venture firms, it's becoming that much more important, then, to know how to protect themselves.

For now, it appears that the old rules of VC don't apply in this new world, and the safe bet for VCs, their investors and portfolio companies is to operate under the assumption that the venture world will never go back to its hand-shake roots. It is that much more important, then, that venture firms doing everything they can to protect themselves.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (15441)12/21/2002 1:40:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Serial teams go from one start-up to another

By Jennifer Files
San Jose Mercury News
December 13, 2002

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Ramjit Johl knew he would feel comfortable working at Ample Communications practically before the Fremont start-up was born. He had already worked for its Chief Executive Officer Visveswar "Vish" Akella at four other companies since the two met at San Jose State University in the early 1980s.

"Anytime he's going to go do something, there's never even a thought of whether I'm going to go join him or not," says Johl, who manages three engineering teams at Ample. "He understands my capabilities and I understand his. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you start a new company." Start-ups like Ample - where a third of the workers knew each other from previous jobs - might better be called start-agains. These new companies bring together former co-workers for a fresh chance to find, or repeat, success. And if the Internet is Silicon Valley's best-known network, this more personal follow-a-leader job network is at least as much a part of the way business gets done.

Serial teams challenge the myth of valley start-up worker as loner, the high-tech cowboy who rides solo from one opportunity to the next. Here are the high-tech herds - from co-founders who have already struck it rich once to lower-level co-workers rejoining after a past venture failed.

"It's very common," said Roland Van der Meer, partner at ComVentures, a Palo Alto Venture capital firm. "If it's a good team, it's a good thing."

Stanford University researchers found a decade ago that semiconductor start-ups had a better shot at surviving when their founding teams had worked together before. And while some caution that teams who switch companies together risk becoming stale, workers who move in packs cite major benefits for companies and their employees. These range from ease of hiring to speedy decision-making to a sense of safety and trust that has become rare during the extended economic downturn.

"There's that sense that you're not walking into something cold and starting from scratch," said Sherry Holloway, office manager at Aruba Wireless Networks in San Jose and one of 11 early employees who previously had worked together a few blocks away at Alteon WebSystems.

Alteon, founded in 1996, was once one of tech's runaway success stories: Its share price shot up to $160 in mid-2000, just before Nortel Networks bought it in a stock swap worth more than $7 billion. Rank-and-file workers became multimillionaires - then, in many cases, lost their fortunes as Nortel shares plummeted.

Nortel kept Alteon's product line but closed its building. Dozens of the start-ups' former employees were nostalgic enough to gather for a group photo just before the doors were shut. Under Nortel, many lost their jobs to layoffs or moved on to other start-ups.

The co-workers kept in touch, creating an Alteon alumni Web page and updating each other on their jobs and personal milestones. And when former Alteon executives Keerti Melkote and Pankaj Manglik started Aruba, which makes equipment for wireless local area networks, they turned to their former colleagues for talent, funding and advice.

Alteon's former chief technology officer, Shirish Sathaye, now a partner at Matrix Ventures, quickly committed $5 million in venture capital, and ex-Alteon CEO Dominic Orr agreed to join Aruba's board. Selina Lo, Alteon's former vice president of marketing, consults for Aruba.

"In January we have to hire sales guys...I know all of their names now," Manglik says. "I'm going to walk up to them regardless of what they're working for and say, 'Hey, we need you.'"

Experts might suggest bringing in some complete outsiders, too. "It's a trade-off between experience and mindlessness," says Robert Sutton, co-director of the Center for Work, Technology, and Organization at Stanford University. "Have a group of people who are familiar with one another and bring in some outsiders to shake them up - if they're fighting a lot that's a good sign."

Outsiders have a special challenge at companies where many employees have worked together for years.

"It's a constant reminder. People are always telling me, 'I haven't been here as long as everyone else,'" says Harry Gruber, a serial entrepreneur in San Diego whose new ventures frequently employ workers from his previous start-ups.

Ample, which makes chips for communication networks, has outsiders in senior management. But its top executives - Akella, Ravinder 'Ravi' Sajwan and Sanjay Sharma - all were executives at Acclaim Communications before selling the company. Sharma even fired Akella from a previous job - they joke now that it was because he played too much pingpong.

Of Ample's 53 headquarters employees, 11 worked together at Acclaim. A dozen more met at other past jobs.

The company's executives say they know each other so well that there is little haggling over decisions. "I've never seen Ravi upset," Akella says. "Sanjay, for him, everything can be done. It's amazing how many pitfalls can be avoided if they've done it once before," Akella says.

___
(c) 2002, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).