Updated: Investing and Inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
UPDATED on 8/18/2014 – Bruce Booth in FORBES
VC-Backed Biotech IPOs: Valuations And Virtuous Cycles
UPDATED on 8/18/2014
7 Unconventional Ways To Fund A Medtech Startup
By Jim Pomager
Bringing innovative new medical technology to market today is as challenging, complex, and competitive an endeavor as it’s ever been for entrepreneurs and startups. Making matters worse, venture capital — the fuel that fledgling companies once depended on to drive product development — has dwindled in recent years.
According to an annual report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), venture capitalists (VCs) invested a mere $2.1 billion in medical device and equipment companies in 2013. That may sound like a lot on the surface, but it’s the lowest annual figure for the industry in the last nine years, down 17 percent from $2.5 billion in 2012, and down a whopping 43 percent from the $3.7-billion high-water mark of 2007.
Not only is funding scarce, but VCs have become incredibly risk averse, waiting until much later in the product development cycle to get involved. There was a time not so long ago when new entrants to the medtech sector could obtain funding with little more than a great idea and a solid business plan, or so it seemed. Today, however, investors are withholding their support until a device accumulates significant safety and efficacy evidence, and often until regulatory and reimbursement approval have been secured. This leads to an unfortunate catch-22 — startups need substantial funding to get their technology into clinical trials, but VCs often want to see clinical trial data before committing.
Faced with this conundrum, medtech entrepreneurs have to get creative, and the broader healthcare industry is rallying to help support them. Experts from Cleveland Clinic, UnitedHealthcare, and other organizations discussed this trend during a lively panel session on this topic called How Healthcare Will Support Startups: In Dollars And Beyond, during the recent MedCity Converge conference in Philadelphia. While the panel focused primarily on digital health startups, they did identify 7 nontraditional sources of funding that might fit the bill for your medical technology company.
1. Divergent Corporate Venturing
Seeking capital from established corporations may not sound like a novel idea. In fact, it has become commonplace for large medical device companies to loan small, private companies millions in return for an option to purchase them at a later date. (See Boston Scientific’s $15 million deal with MValve Technologies last month or St. Jude’s acquisition of CardioMEMS in June.) These arrangements have their benefits — medtech corporations offer startups critical market knowledge and tend to be more patient than private VC firms.
However, more interesting strategic partnerships are beginning to form across traditional industry lines. Not only can large corporations outside the medical device space offer medtech startups new investment streams, they can also provide important technological solutions and a fresh perspective on design. “We are typically looking not just for cash, but for other technologies that our startups can embed in theirs to make a better mousetrap,” said Gary Fingerhut, executive director of Cleveland Clinic Innovations.
Fingerhut’s group, whose goal is to translate the ideas of physicians, scientists, and caregivers to the market, manages approximately 450 royalty-bearing licenses a year from a traditional tech transfer perspective, and also has 67 spinoff companies operating underneath it. Among the many cross-industry corporate partnerships it has helped form for its startups in recent years are joint initiatives with Parker Hannifin, IBM, Verizon, and Lubrizol.
“We very much believe that it can bring a lot of resources to the table — not just capital, but resources in other industries that they’ve been in and have not ventured into healthcare,” Fingerhut added. “We bring the domain expertise. They bring their technologies, their experience, their go-to-market capabilities, and their capital. It’s a win-win.”
2. Aggressive Grant Funding
Another twist on a familiar fundraising tactic was identified by Tom Vanderheyden, VP of business development and commercialization for health insurance carrier UnitedHealthcare (UHC). He said that really focused startups can sometimes substitute significant grant funding in lieu of early VC support.
“Something that I’ve seen a few times recently is companies taking the angel rounds of a couple hundred thousand dollars to get started, and then putting a lot of energy into grant funding,” he said. “They go for the non-dilutive $1 million to $3 million. We’ve seen that be very successful, and then you come out of that grant funding phase and you’ve got meaningful enterprise that’s got lots of IP juice behind it.”
Daphne Zohar, founder of PureTech Ventures — a venture creation company that proactively creates new companies to solve unmet healthcare problems (including one developing a noninvasive neuromodulation device for the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders) — said that her company pursues a great deal of grants for its startups. “We actually have a person full-time on the team who just applies for grants,” she explained. “They have gotten millions in grants, which is terrific, because the funds are non-dilutive and move things forward.”
Cleveland Clinic’s Fingerhut agreed, saying his group has brought in over $150 million of state money through programs like Ohio’s Third Frontier. Many other states offer similar programs to support startups. (For instance, I wrote about Pennsylvania’s Ben Franklin Technology Partners in a previous story.) The federal government is also a good source of grant money, through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF).
3. Accelerators & Incubators
Having founded a medtech startup himself, Joseph Mayer, M.D., extolled the virtues of accelerators and incubators. The CEO of Cureatr, a mobile care coordinator, went through the New York Digital Health Acceleratorwhen his company was starting out.
“For us, it was a good opportunity,” he said. “We had two people when we started, with one customer, and we came out of it with two more customers. At the end of the day, that’s what matters. You have to ask yourself, ‘What would I pay for two customers in terms of salespeople, etc.?’”
Compared to some other sources of funding, the amount of money you can get from an accelerator or incubator is relatively small, typically in the tens or hundreds of thousands. UHC’s Vanderheyden said that Rock Health, a healthcare accelerator that his group supports, characterizes its financial support as “grants and Ramen (the infamous and inexpensive instant noodles) money.” But what these entities lack in funds they more than make up for in value-added services.
“We are very active with accelerators in terms of venturing,” said Vanderheyden. “Some entrepreneurs we have found in this space are focused on the clinical benefit, the physician engagement, etc. They haven’t quite figured out yet the economics of the business. That’s something we feel we can shine some light on.” In addition to business advice, some of the perks provided by these programs can include inexpensive office and lab space, medical expertise and guidance, targeted educational programming, and more.
And some accelerators are now offering funding packages that are “getting closer to real money,” as Vanderheyden put it. You can obtain a total of $300,000 from New York Digital Health, he said. Verizon Foundation gives approximately $800,000, according to Cleveland Clinic’s Fingerhut. And there’s nothing prohibiting startups from going through multiple accelerator programs.
4. Partnering With Not-For-Profits
Everyone knows that patient advocacy and other not-for-profit organizations play a major role in financially (and otherwise) backing fundamental research. But what you may not know is that these groups are starting to become much more involved in helping technologies related to their treatment areas of interest reach commercialization.
Zohar described an initiative that PureTech Ventures launched called the Valley of Life, which brings together investors and not-for-profits to achieve common financial and mission-driven goals. The program aims to assist select startups bridge the so-called biomedical “valley of death” between angel and VC funding.
The Valley of Life’s first pilot program is in the juvenile diabetes space and involves the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Joslin Diabetes Center (an affiliate of Harvard Medical School). “The idea is basically a $10 million fund that’s funded primarily from patient groups that have been up until now funding basic research, and are now really interested in the translational aspect,” Zohar explained.
5. Customer Investment
The next approach, while admittedly much more straightforward for digital health companies than for pure-play device makers, is still worth noting. Cureatr’s Mayer was the first to point out that customers can be an excellent source of funding for new companies: “You build a strong relationship with a customer, a large health system, the big for-profits in the national market — they’re starting to do more and more, not just biotech but healthcare IT investment.”
In some cases, these current or future customers may be willing to pay an advance on future services. “Another thing I have seen, but I won’t say we’ve done, is what I like to call the prepaid revenue model,” said UHC’s Vanderheyden. “I have seen corporates take some risk and say, ‘I think over the next 12 or 24 months, we plan on spending $600,000 in total for your services, so we’ll give you half of that up front to get the party started. Now you can get some hiring done and expand your infrastructure — whatever you need to do.”
6. Hybrid VC Approaches
Although securing venture capital funding is no picnic these days, there are signs that the situation is improving. According to the latest quarterly report from PwC and NVCA, VC dollars invested in the medical devices and equipment sector rose for the second straight month, reaching $649 million in 73 deals. Narrowing the focus to the capital of the global medical device market, Minnesota saw medical device investing more than double between Q2 2013 and Q2 2014, per a recent report from Life Science Alley.
PureTech’s Zohar shared a potential strategy for working with VC investors — engage a mixture of life science and technology investors, and cater to each group’s specific needs. “I think one thing that’s interesting is the metrics that life science investors use versus the metrics that technology investors use. There really are not many investors that are focused on digital health and can really look at all sides of the spectrum,” she said. “Tech investors tend to look at the customers and whether you have revenue or are likely to have revenue, whereas life science investors will look at the technology IP and the specific application. The kinds of things that we’re doing are really a hybrid, so we have to cultivate a group of investors that have that creativity.”
Regardless of whether you use a traditional approach or a hybrid one, Mayer of Cureatr shared some general advice on engaging the right VC investor. Make sure you pick one that truly understands the healthcare sales cycle, that believes in you and your team, and that you think you will enjoy working with, he suggested.
7. Crowdfunding
The use of crowdfunding was an almost unavoidable topic of discussion. After all, not a week goes by without news of a medtech startup (particularly in the wearable segment) launching a new Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign. However, I saved it until last because the panel expressed a great deal of concern about the use of crowdfunding, and offered some sound advice as to why.
Vanderheyden shared a cautionary tale, based on an anecdote he heard during a recent investor conference in Minneapolis. “[One of the speakers] said he took over for a company that had crowdfunded. They had 450 non-credited investors, and he said it was a disaster. One of the investors had originally sent in $5,400, and 90 days later he calls the CEO asking for his money back,” Vanderheyden explained. “Think about it as the CEO of an early-stage startup. Now you have dozens and dozens —or conceptually hundreds — of equity stakeholders, non-accredited, that you now have to manage.”
As an inherently public exercise, crowdfunding also exposes startups to potentially negative publicity. Zohar likened it to using an online dating site, where people won’t be willing to engage you until you have built up sufficient credibility and validation on the site. “There’s a bit of a risk in putting yourself out there and saying, ‘Hey, I’m looking for money,’” she said of crowdfunding. “What if you can’t raise the money? What does that say [to potential investors]? Does that say your idea isn’t good?
“During the very early stages, when we actually could use that funding, we would rather find the funding from other sources that exist, and not put ourselves out there as looking like as if we need the money,” she added.
If you are hell-bent on exploring crowdfunding for your startup, the panelists agreed that you should check outAngelList, which is effectively a crowdfunding site for accredited investors. “AngelList is probably the best example of institutionalized crowdfunding,” Mayer said, “where you can get 20 people into a round.”
While finding and obtaining investment for new medtech companies is certainly a challenge in the current economic environment, it is far from impossible, as the examples above attest. I am curious to hear your opinion on these strategies — or other unconventional methods you have either used or learned about.
SOURCE
UPDATED on 4/15/2014
14th ANNUAL BIOTECH IN EUROPE FORUM For Global Partnering & Investment
30th September – 1st October 2014 • Congress Center Basel
SACHS Associates, London
http://www.sachsforum.com/zurich14/index.html
UPDATED on 4/15/2014
New Trends in Investing and Inventing: Who Benefits from the Booming Success of the Technology Industry
INVESTMENT BANKING, TECHNOLOGY, VENTURE CAPITAL, INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS, SILICON VALLEY (CALIF), START-UPS
The dealbook.nytimes.com reported in 4/13/2014 the following IPO related and Start up Cases that exemplify the NEW trends
by Sydney Emner with Comments of Scott Kupor, Managing Partner at Andreessen Horowitz.
- “There’s a broader public policy question here,” Mr. Kupor said. “There is a wealth transfer happening, from public investors to private investors. And the benefits are accruing to the investors that can access the private markets.”
- Of the 100 largest venture capital rounds on record, 88 were issued within the past five years, according to CrunchBase, which tracks venture funding. Each delivered more than $50 million to the companies.
- Proliferation of big late-stage investments: The average size of such investments so far this year was $44.1 million, the highest level in the past five years and up 77 percent from last year, according to data from CB Insights.
- Technology start-ups are staying private longer
- Venture capital firms are looking to put idle funds to work, and
- Institutional investors are chasing returns in fast-growing private companies
- Megarounds, the flood of money is inflating the valuations of early-stage companies. companies are collecting the additional money simply because they can, taking advantage of an ocean of ready cash
- Over valuations may lead to yet another dot-com bubble 2014 vs 2001
- For venture capitalists, allowing portfolio companies to take on more funding means their existing stakes can be diluted. But since these big rounds often lead to much higher valuations, many investors don’t mind
- Partner at Sequoia Capital, conceded that investors were spending less and less time conducting due diligence: playing by slightly different rules than what happened even five years ago
- In recent years the sheer amount of capital available for investment in Silicon Valley start-ups went up: big venture capital firms have recently raised big rounds, meaning the traditional backers of tech firms are well positioned to write big checks
- Venture capitalists are increasingly being joined by hedge funds and private equity firms chasing huge returns. Among the top investors in fund-raising rounds that collected over $100 million are
- Digital Sky Technologies and
- Tiger Global Management, which ranked alongside traditional venture capital firms like
- Andreessen Horowitz and
- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, according to CB Insights
- Also joining the fray are mutual funds like
- T. Rowe Price and
- Fidelity Investments.
- JPMorgan
“Appreciation that normally would have happened in the public market is happening in the private market,” said Mr. Kupor of Andreessen Horowitz. “This is why we see T. Rowe, Fidelity and JPMorgan investing. They’re saying, ‘There’s not a lot of growth for us in the public market.’ ”
- In many cases, such firms are given access to promising start-ups with the understanding that they would remain investors even after an I.P.O.
- Some hedge funds are even transforming themselves into so-called growth capital firms that invest in older start-ups. Coatue Management, for example, is planning on raising a $500 million fund devoted to the kinds of investments that the firm has made in companies like Snapchat.com and the last-minute hotel booking site HotelTonight.com. Dropbox.com is another case in point
- Instead of raising just enough money for the next 18 months or two years, companies are now raising all the money they could feasibly need as a private company in one fell swoop.“Today, companies can raise money well ahead of any actual need.” Mr. Fogelsong said.
- Companies receiving the influxes of capital, having so much money in the bank allows them to control their own destiny, rather than be at the mercy of acquirers or the markets. “If someone wants to buy them, they can turn it down and wait for a higher price,” said Peter C. Wendell, managing director of Sierra Ventures. “If the I.P.O. is looking shaky, they can say, ‘Look at my balance sheet,’ and wait.”
- The average age of companies going public today is 10 years, in contrast to the average of just six years in 2000, according to Jay R. Ritter, a professor at the University of Florida.
- On average, between a quarter and just under a third of the late-stage money is being used to buy shares from employees and early investors ahead of an I.P.O.
- “Rounds that would have otherwise gotten done in the public markets are getting done in the private markets,” said Scott Kupor, partner and chief operating officer of Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm that is among the most active participants in big late-stage rounds.
Case Study #1: Quora.com
Quora, a question-and-answer website, didn’t need to raise money. It had barely touched $60 million in venture capital that it accepted just two years ago. Yet the California company, which has no revenue and just 70 employees, recently announced that it had raised an additional $80 million. The new round valued the company at a reported $900 million, more than double the previous valuation of $400 million. That means that while some early investors may have seen their ownership diluted by the new round, the value of their holdings nonetheless soared. “When it goes off at a high price, the V.C. gets to change the price of the other stock on his books,” said Mr. Wendell of Sierra Ventures. The result is that much of a company’s gain in value is happening before it even goes public.
Case Study #2: Nextdoor.com
Silicon Valley expression: Eat when the food is passed,” said Nirav Tolia, chief executive of Nextdoor, which last year accepted $60 million in additional venture funding despite having plenty of money in the bank. . “It’s always good to bet on the furthest-out point.” per Mr. Tolia
Case Study #3: Airbnb.com
Airbnb, the home-sharing site, neared a deal to raise as much as a staggering $500 million from investors like TPG Growth, T. Rowe Price and Dragoneer Investment Group, according to people briefed on the matter. TPG Growth alone had been prepared to provide up to $150 million in the round, one of these people said
Case Study #4: Uber.com and Lyft.com
And two weeks ago, Lyft raised $250 million from the likes of the Alibaba Group of China and Daniel S. Loeb’s investment firm, Third Point — despite being widely regarded as significantly behind the leader in the car service industry, Uber.com
Longer incubation periods mean many companies do need more capital for operating expenses. For example, companies that focus on on-demand services, like the car ride companies Uber and Lyft, require capital as they build out their dispatch networks in new cities and offer new products.
Case Study #5: Fab.com
Fab.com, an e-commerce start-up that raised $150 million last summer at the tender age of two years. An overambitious expansion plan and falling sales led to a wave of employee exits and a painful retrenchment.
Case Study #6: Box.com
Box, the cloud storage company, has filed to go public at a time when, filings show, it needs to raise more capital. But its rival, Dropbox, recently raised $250 million and may put off its I.P.O., especially as appetite for technology stocks is faltering.
Case Study #7: HomeAway.com
In 2008, HomeAway, the real estate website, was planning to go public. But as the financial crisis began, HomeAway executives decided to postpone the I.P.O. Instead, in November of that year, HomeAway raised $250 million in additional venture capital and resolved not to think about going public for at least two years. The company finally went public in 2011.
SOURCE
UPDATED 3/1/2014
The 2nd ANNUAL Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering & Investment Forum Promoting Public & Private Sector Collaboration & Investment in Drug Development, 19th March 2014 • New York Academy of Sciences • USA
UPDATED on 1/10/2014
Biotech Showcase™ 2014
January 13-15, 2014 San Francisco, CA Parc 55 Wyndham, SF, Union Square
Investing and Inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
According to JERZY GANGI, SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR
Investing and inventing has become way too dogmatic:
- Investors say, “We don’t fund ideas, we fund traction.”
- Entrepreneurs say, “You never make a business plan. You only make an MVP.”
- Investors say, “We like companies that are going to get acquired for $100M, not try to go for an IPO.”
- Entrepreneurs say, “I’ll just aim for an acqui-hire or a small M&A deal, it’s much lower risk.”
- Investors say, “We make a lot of small investments, instead of one or two that are potential home runs.
SOURCE
http://jerzygangi.com/why-silicon-valley-funds-instagrams-not-hyperloops/#!
This curation was conceived following the review on the following Sources:
Source # 1
WHERE STARTUP FUNDING REALLY COMES FROM (INFOGRAPHIC)
By Laura Entis, November 20, 2013
http://www.healthiosxchange.com/articles/1030/where-startup-funding-really-comes-from#!
Source #2
WHY SILICON VALLEY FUNDS INSTAGRAMS, NOT HYPERLOOPS
by JERZY GANGI SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR, August 19, 2013
http://jerzygangi.com/why-silicon-valley-funds-instagrams-not-hyperloops/#!
Source #3
Special Issue: Silicon Valley: Global model or unique anomaly by Social Science Information/SSI – A Sage Publicationsinternational journal
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Innovators can exit with an idea: How to Monetizing Patents and ideas: yazamIP.com launches Idea Lab
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Source #5
Connecting INVENTORS to BUSINESS BUILDERS and INVESTORS
Source #6
University-Industry Partnerships; NIH/DOD Funded Industry – Academic Collaborations
According to Source #1: Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
According to Source #2: Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
Ten Theories explain the REALITY
THEORY 1: THE IPO MARKET SUCKSTHEORY 2: CONTEMPORARY PORTFOLIO STRATEGY FAVORS LAYUPS AND DISCOURAGES 3-POINTERS
THEORY 3: “WE DON’T FUND IDEAS”
THEORY 4: “minimally viable product” The MVP OBSESSION
THEORY 5: THE MARKET REWARDS EXITS, NOT INNOVATION AND VALUETHEORY 6: INVESTORS ARE TOO SPECIALIZED
THEORY 7: MOST ANGELS AND VC’S ARE WIMPS
Second 7 in the Original Article, thus,
- 2nd 7 = Theory 8
- Theory 8 = Theory 9
- Theory 9 = Theory 10
THEORY 7: CORPORATE R&D AND CORPORATE TALENT RETENTION SUCKS, SO CORPORATE M&A IS HUNGRY
THEORY 8: FIRST-TIME ENTREPRENEURS CAN’T BE TRUSTED
THEORY 9: THE REAL REASON IS THAT WE’RE SHEEP
According to Source #3: The SILICON VALLEY Tango of Investing and inventing is Still on
Henry Etzkowitz
Silicon Valley at risk? Sustainability of a global innovation icon: An introduction
to the Special Issue
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 515-538,
doi:10.1177/0539018413501946
Doug Henton and Kim Held
The dynamics of Silicon Valley: Creative destruction and the evolution of the
innovation habitat
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 539-557,
doi:10.1177/0539018413497542
James C Williams
From white gold to silicon chips: Hydraulic technology, electric power and
Silicon Valley
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 558-574,
doi:10.1177/0539018413497834
Annika Steiber and Sverker Alänge
The formation and growth of Google: A firm-level triple helix perspective
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 575-604,
doi:10.1177/0539018413497833
Henry Etzkowitz
StartX and the ‘Paradox of Success’: Filling the gap in Stanford’s
entrepreneurial culture
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 605-627,
doi:10.1177/0539018413498833
Steven Casper
New-technology clusters and public policy: Three perspectives
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 628-652,
doi:10.1177/0539018413501236
Helen Lawton Smith, John Glasson, Saverio Romeo, Rupert Waters, and Andrew
Chadwick
Entrepreneurial regions: Evidence from Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire
Social Science Information December 2013 52: 653-673,
doi:10.1177/0539018413499978
According to Source #4: Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
1. yazamIP.com launches Idea Lab, enabling innovators to exit without necessarily establishing a startup.
If you: (A) have a track record of innovation and have a solution for a significant technical problem, and (B) are interested in either of the options below, both have no cost to you: (i) a $1,000,000 “exit” from your idea without necessarily leaving your “day-job”; (ii) having proven innovation, patent and business experts work with you to establish a robust patent portfolio based on your idea. And you maintain the option to spin off the strong portfolio into a startup for you to build the market.
Then yazamIP.com’s Idea Lab is for you. See http://www.yazamip.com/valuations
2. Tel Aviv University’s Ramot raises $17m from Tata & SanDisk.http://yazamip.com/node/84
3. Elvis Presley IP sells. http://yazamip.com/node/82
4. Innovation and patents are helping to increase gun sales.http://yazamip.com/node/85
Want to get a valuation on your patent? See http://yazamip.com/valuations
Do not forget to contact yazamIP.com to inquire about our most generous “referral a patent” fee arrangement.
- If the companies are in distress and have US patents then we can sell them for the inventor
- If the patents are being infringed upon, we can see how we can help the inventor get compensated
- If the inventors have great ideas that they have not turned into companies yet, we would consider investing in them to convert the ideas into patent portfolios
According to Source #5: Connecting INVENTORS to BUSINESS BUILDERS and INVESTORS — Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
National Venture Capital Association <http://www.nvca.org/>
DEN =http://www.den.dartmouth.edu/ http://www.den.dartmouth.edu/about/overview.html
Small Business Investment Companies (SBIC) <http://www.sba.gov/content/venture-capital-startups-high-growth-technology-companies> programs by state
Directory of Angel-investor networks <http://www.inc.com/articles/2001/09/23461.html>
Tech Coast Venture Network <http://tcvn.org/>
Start-up Report posting service <http://www.startupreport.com/>
Hub Angels Investment Group, LLC <http://www.hubangels.com/>
Links to Angel networks in Midwest <http://www.northstareconomics.com/angel_investing.htm>
The San Diego Venture Group <http://www.sdvg.org/>
Angels in Arizona <http://www.arizonaangels.com/index.htm>
The Aurora Angels <http://www.auroraangels.com/>
Atlanta, Georgia, Angel network <http://angelatlanta.com/>
Valley Angel Investment Fund
<http://gust.com/angel-group/valley-angel-investment-fund> Ohio Angel network <http://www.c-cap.net/about.html>
Great Valley Pennsylvania Angel network <http://www.greatvalleyalliance.com/programs/paan.htm>
Vancouver, British Columbia Angel network <http://www.vef.org/>
Information and links to venture capital sources in China <http://www.chinasite.com/Business/VentureCapital.html>
Los Angeles Regional Technology Alliance <http://www.larta.org/>
According to Source #6:University-Industry Partnerships; NIH/DOD Funded Industry – Academic Collaborations – Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on
|
CONCLUSIONS
by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
- Investing and inventing is a Market Place as well as a Profession. Market places are typified by information imperfection and Professions are typified by very steep Specialization and Competition
- I am in full agreement with the comment made by
“Quite interesting that average family and friends investment is $23,000. I wonderhowtheywereabletoseperateoutcrowdfunding, angel investors, from family and friends. I also wonder whattherateofincreasewithcrowdfunding is? However equally surprising is that VC does not make that much of initial startup funding. I think banks level of funding have steadily decreased since the consolidation of the 90’s.”
- I followed the advice of Dr. Dror Nir and I perfectly agree with his observation on the relevance of the Ten Theories by JERZY GANGI, SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR
Dror Nir, Managing partner at RadBee, Expert, Author, Writer, Editor and Top Contributor to LinkedIn Group: Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence
“I think you should read this, there are interesting insights which I very much agree with.”
http://jerzygangi.com/why-silicon-valley-funds-instagrams-not-hyperloops/
- Innovators can exit with an idea: How to Monetizing Patents and ideas: yazamIP.com launches Idea Lab. yazamIP.com launches Idea Lab, enabling innovators to exit without necessarily establishing a startup. This is a desruptive technology with great potential designed to solve problems emerging from the Ten theories of the dogmatic nature of the interplay between Investors and Entrepreneurs who are either the Inventors or the Team members of Start ups.
- I agree with JERZY GANGI, SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR that Investing and inventing has become way too dogmatic:
- Investors say, “We don’t fund ideas, we fund traction.”
- Entrepreneurs say, “You never make a business plan. You only make an MVP.”
- Investors say, “We like companies that are going to get acquired for $100M, not try to go for an IPO.”
- Entrepreneurs say, “I’ll just aim for an acqui-hire or a small M&A deal, it’s much lower risk.”
- Investors say, “We make a lot of small investments, instead of one or two that are potential home runs.
- Source #1 – is a MUST information to be mastered by both Investors and Entrepreneurs
- The ten theories are very insightful, they mirror my own views on Investing and inventing as is manifested in the US and in other Developed countries.
- Angel Investment is there to stay and is the MOST sensitive source of funding affected by volatility in economic markets conditions. Source #5 was add as an endorsed suggestion made by Dr. Justin D Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC an Expert, Author, Writer, Editor @ http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com, a Patent holder and an Inventor at Leaders of Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence
- Silicon Valley is where I lived, 1978 – 1990 (Palo Alto), pursued Graduate studies (UC, Berkeley, Stanford GSB) and worked as an Executive in the Largest Think Tank in the US, SRI International, and at Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA]. The SIlicon Valley is not an anomaly but a Singular point in the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem.
- Silicon Valley is being followed by another Singular point driven by and derived from a different ethos and impatus, namely, the ecosystem in the “Start ups Nation” Israel.
- Israel is different than the Silicon Valley in CA, or any other Start ups hub in the US.
- I am in full agreement, based on my own experience as an Israeli resident in Israel, 1958 – 1978, with the differences and the unique reasons for the Israeli success, as presented in
Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle by Dan Senor (Author), Saul Singer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Start-up-Nation-Israels-Economic-Miracle/dp/0446541478
Other related articles published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:
-
REAL TIME Cancer Conference Coverage: A Novel Methodology for Authentic Reporting on Presentations and Discussions launched via Twitter.com @ The 2nd ANNUAL Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering & Investment Forum in Drug Development, 19th March 2014 • New York Academy of Sciences • USA
-
Methodology for Conference Coverage using Social Media: 2014 MassBio Annual Meeting 4/3 – 4/4 2014, Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, MA
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aptubman
Arav Gandhi
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22