Part V: Scaling Up Investment—Finance the Startup of Start-up Communities

In Part V, subjects discussed:

1.)   For Entrepreneurs—What are You Selling to Investors?

2.)   For Investors—Let’s Be Realistic

3.)   For Governments/Development Finance Institutions—Atypical Leadership Needed

4.)   Concluding Remarks

5.)   My Next Blog Series—Mobilize Local Capital to Finance Your Dreams

6.)   About Me

7.)   Links: Evolution of Runet (Russia Internet) & the Russia Tech Scene

Last time in Part IV, the Quest for Growth, I discussed:

1.)   Clonentrepreneurship or Alternative Paths to the Start-up of Start-up Communities?

2.)   Change the Culture & Amazing Things Happen

Read Part IV here.

The ‘take-away from Part IV.

Clonentrepreneurs sensitize local investors to the rewards of investing in technology since clones match the behavior of local investors to risk. As results are achieved and money is made by all, investors open up to new investment opportunities a bit more adventuresome and innovative—disruptive vs. cloning.

Cloning and Clonentrepreneurship is one strategy to impact the DNA of local investors in emerging countries to spark the startup of start-up communities, but of course others exist.

What are the other actions which each you can take to achieve your objectives and fuel the startup of start-up communities?

For Entrepreneurs—What Are You Selling to Investors?

Entrepreneurs raising money too often attempt to shape investor risk behavior to their investment opportunity. Instead, shape your business model to match the needs of not only your customers but investors too.  Think creatively to find the solution which your customers will pay for—no matter how little the revenue is per customer—to craft your business model to match investors’ DNA to risk.  Design your business model and its execution to systematically attack each of their fears to early stage tech deals.

Once you have this business model executed with paying customers, approach investors by ‘selling risk, then opportunity,’ i.e., demonstrate how you’ve eliminated risk in each of the four categories to prove your great investment opportunity. Once you raise money, execute yes but also pay forward in your start-up community; be the role model to other entrepreneurs, teach/mentor them in the solutions which you executed to overcome the fears of local investors in emerging markets.

For Local Investors—Let’s Be Realistic

Rarely will Western clones match the big returns as your investments in telecomm, real estate, construction, food/beverages, fast moving consumer goods, wholesaling and retailing have performed.  Yet as the economy in your country progresses and incomes grow, populations and enterprises open their pocketbooks to products and services which better match changing needs. 

In the Chinese online travel industry for example, Ctrip and eLong have millions of registered users. Entrepreneurs seeking money to compete against them is risky and uncertain; however opportunities exist for unorthodox business models. For example, Chinese company Qunar is a travel search engine for online travel services. It aggregates travel information like air tickets, hotels and holiday offerings so Chinese consumers can make better and more informed travel decisions. Qunar serves the evolving needs of consumers and achieves success by approaching the market differently by making competitors—its partners.

Tell entrepreneurs your needs for business models which generate revenues in the immediate term; postpone your demands for immediate profits and cash distributions. Be creative in deal structuring and flexible to valuations since tech business models scale better across customers and geographies to justify higher prices paid vs. investments in brick and mortar.

Structure the investment agreement to align and incentivize entrepreneurs to your attitudes and behaviors to risk.  Oh, how does that work? An example:

American investor financings typically include an equity option plan for founders and employees.  In some emerging countries, legislation permits the issuing of equity options to management of start-ups. When permissible, distribute equity shares based on revenues realized vs. traditional metrics like length of time served in the company or # of users engaged. If legislation does not permit this action, structure the investment agreement as equity earn-ins held in escrow with shares issued when agreed-upon metrics are achieved.

For Governments/Development Finance Institutions—Atypical Leadership Needed

Governments and their finance institutions conceive venture initiatives to catalyze venture funds, to finance the startup of start-up communities.  Frequently these funds are modeled to the program called Yozma, the Israel Government’s fund-of?funds.

Yozma was capitalized with $100 million; $80 million which financed new VC funds with $20 million for direct investment into Israeli tech SMEs.  It invested $8 million into a private VC fund with a minimum of $12 million/fund invested by Israeli and foreign venture capitalists. Yozma financed ten VC funds with a total capitalization exceeding $200 million. These funds went on to finance innovative companies and spur the development of the high tech SME and VC industry in Israel, where one did not exist before. Fast forward 10 years and the 10 funds supported by Yozma were managing over $3+billion with the VC industry in Israel managing $10+billion.

Yozma-type schemes offer economic incentives to induce investment and build learning experiences in seed and early stage tech investing such as:

1.)   Commit up to 49% of the capital to the creation of a new VC fund

2.)   Offer preferential returns to investors

3.)   Take 1st losses on failed investments

4.)   Cap financial returns to the Government so as to boost profits to investors

5.)   Subsidize management fees &/or pay the costs of investment due diligence

6.)   Allow private investors to ‘buy-out’ the Government’s equity, usually within the 1st five years of fund operation, at cost + a bank interest rate of return

Yozma worked exceedingly well in Israel and a few industrial nations.[1]  But results in China, Russia, Chile, and other emerging countries has not been so spectacular; local investors didn’t respond in the #s or volume of investments in the seed and early stage sector as expected and targeted by sponsoring governments.[2] 

Hmmmm. Reality sets-in as staffers scramble for new solutions and a chair before the music stops.  “Let’s try something different.”

When domestic capital does not change its risk behavior to seed/early stage tech, government staffers work vigorously to create a new class of investor—angels—since their risk behavior better matches the profile of entrepreneurial ventures. While angel investors are welcome in all countries, developing this community takes years to accomplish with multiple false starts and entrepreneurs seeking money now going unfunded.

Hmmmm—let’s rethink what the initiatives should be.”

Plenty of money exists in the pocketbooks of local investors in emerging markets to finance start-ups for a start-up community to emerge.  What’s required is the unlocking and mobilizing of local capital for investment in technology, 1st time entrepreneurs and early stage tech SMEs. Certainly encouraging a cloning strategy in the entrepreneurial community is one solution to unleashing local capital as the successes of Russian clonentrepreneurs proved. 

Another solution is to think forward—design venture schemes which better match local investors’ behavior to risk and the mentoring of local investors in early stage tech investment. Include in this mentoring ‘show & tell’ sessions of other financing solutions: royalty based or technology performance financing schemes, i.e., capital invested in technology SMEs with investment returns generated from the cost savings and/or revenue enhancement earned by customers.

What else might you do, say with founders and management teams?

Organize a mentoring program; get them the mentors they need to ‘shape’ early stage tech business models to the risk attitudes & behaviors of local investors + ‘sell risk, then opportunity.’ Until investors can understand and ‘buy’ the risk in start-ups & early stage SMEs in the emerging markets, little capital will flow to them.

But what can you do if you seek to do something more ambitious, i.e., generate knowledge creation to disrupt industries and attract local investors for the needed finance?  Deal flow funds are one solution to attack both needs.

Deal flow funds finance entrepreneurs and SMEs executing to a single technology, product or service platform, technical challenges that require new thinking in science and engineering to accomplish.  What might be an example of technical challenges in need of solutions?  Take a look at these slides which tell this story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A ‘deal flow’ fund finances technology development and commercialization.  And in Russia for example, development of the Shtokman field is a national priority of the Russian Government, not only because of its wealth potential but also the promise of new economic prosperity to the Russia Far North.  The linking of technology to a country’s national priority helps assure local financiers that innovators deploying the tech have a market and paying customers.  It’s this matching of tech solutions to customers which harmonize the risk behavior of local investors to the risks of start-ups and early stage SMEs.

 

Concluding Remarks

Emerging markets face huge obstacles in finding talent, capital, knowledge, and yes, the business models which match the risk appetite of local investors.

Clones are one solution to spark the startup of a start-up community since they generate the revenues which local investors demand as a precondition for investment.  As Clonentrepreneurs achieve success, it encourages others to try entrepreneurship too.  Some are a bit more venturesome and launch improvements to models cloned from the West.  Others do something different and inject their own notions of creativity by innovating new solutions layered on top of Western platforms like Russian beta-stage start-up ClipClock is doing to YouTube or IVI.ru is doing in the Russian video streaming industry.

And isn’t that what we want?

More entrepreneurs driving business and economic growth, irrespective of the business model or the platform technology. We all want more investment, more initiative and more conversation with more saying “I can do that” and “I can invest too.” Such actions generate the growth, the economic opportunities for citizens, and the prosperity that all countries, regions, cities and towns desperately seek.

A Future Blog Series: Mobilize Local Capital to Finance Your Dreams

This is one of the topics I mentored 80 entrepreneurs from 36 countries—at Singularity University, located in the heart of Silicon Valley.  These entrepreneurs learned about exponential technologies to solve global challenges, and my job was to work with them—selecting ideas, developing and shaping business models to investors’ behavior to risk.

I was one of approximately 16 or so team project advisors selected from around the world to mentor these entrepreneurs at Singularity University, created by x-Prize Foundation founder/CEO Peter Diamandis and inventor, entrepreneur and futurist Ray Kurzweil.

Till then, be well and be lucky


[1] For explanation why Yozma worked great in Israel and not so well in emerging countries, see ‘The GoForward Plan to Scaling Up Innovation, page 4 (English). For my Russian readers, go to ‘The GoForward Plan to Scaling Up Innovation,’ by Thomas D. Nastas, June/July 2007, Russian edition, Harvard Business Review.  Hungarian readers go to October 2007 ‘Scaling-Up the Innovation Ecosystem,’ Hungarian edition, Harvard Business Review; Sept. 200. Spanish readers go to ‘Innovation for Growth,’ Latin America edition, Harvard Business Review

[2] For explanation, how local investors in emerging market typically behave-invest, when managing Yozma-type schemes, see slides 50-68, ‘Bridging the Valley of Death,’ presentation of Thomas Nastas to staff of the World Bank & IFC, 29 November 2011

About Me

I am a venture and private equity investor since 1986, financing university tech in Michigan with liquidity events including Neogen (NEOG: NASDAQ), AISI Inc. (acquired by ESI, ESIO: NASDAQ, USA) & Personal Bibliographic Systems (acquired by Thompson Financial, NYSE: TRI) as examples.  An entrepreneur myself, I left Michigan in 1992, created int’l and emerging market funds in Africa, Canada, Europe, Kazakhstan and Russia, for ROI & economic development, i.e., >$300 million invested to advance entrepreneurship, innovation and growth in int’l and emerging market countries.  I am past/current Independent Director, Board of Directors of eighteen (18) companies over the past 25 years, USA & international enterprises.

I can work with you in four ways.

1. As an investor advising LPs and GPs in your country for emerging market investment, create venture initiatives (+ raise capital). I invested my own capital + established and managed cash flow, venture, private equity and fund-of-funds as shown in the1st picture below. The 2nd picture shows the deal structures and strategies executed to localize money for investment in each country and to match local investors’ behavior to risk.

2.  As an advisor to Governments & development finance institutions.

  • Design & execute venture initiatives: My clients include Development Bank of Canada, European Commission, European Bank of Reconstruction & Development, IFC/World Bank, Russian Venture Company, Govts of Slovakia, Croatia and the US Govt’s USAID—create, startup, finance & execute:
    • Venture capital funds
    • Venture lending funds
    • Private equity funds
    • Royalty based & cash flow funds
    • Fund-of-funds
  • Design & execute grant schemes—to advance tech dev. thru commercialization:  With six other directors, I manage the $85 million technology commercialization project in Kazakhstan, making grants to finance and advance science from proof-of-concept thru 1stcommercialization.
    • We established the policies/procedures for grant investment, criteria, tender & selection process including all documentation for program execution
    • Selected & committed $22.5 million to 21 development stage SMEs and R&D groups in 2011 & 2012, average grant ?$1MM
    • I lead the creation of 1st technology commercialization office in Kazakhstan, to transfer Kazakhstan tech to market.  I established strategy, programs, key performance metrics, deliverables and all tasks for commercialization & execution-budget is $2.8 million, staffing of four international experts + five Kazaks.
  • Design & execute int’l—cross border tech transfer & commercialization initiatives:  Conceive programs and connect—Russian Corporation of Nanotechnology (Rusnano)—& int’l organizations
    • Created project to establish technology proof-of-concept tech dev. & commercialization program between Rusnano & tech transfer offices of US universities (e.g., Colorado, Utah & Michigan). I established the trust and confidence in the parties to negotiate & secure signed agreements

3.  As an entrepreneur mentoring founders & entrepreneurs as an Independent Director, member of the Board of Directors or member of the Advisory Committee.  I established legal entities, hired & managed staff in Africa, Canada, Europe, Kazakhstan and Russia, all costs of market entry and operation financed by me. Living, working and      investing in these counties—paying the bills too—developed in me the experiences to counsel:

  • Founders of mid-size companies, revenues to $100 million, solutions to integrate their firms into global markets, harmonize products/services & the organization for this global expansion, raise int’l capital and build the 2nd tier layer of management for execution
  • Entrepreneurs of early stage companies, my contributions include conceive/negotiate partnerships for 1st commercialization, raise 2nd round VC financing, ‘shape’ business models to the risk profile and behavior of local money in the country, mentor/counsel management team in growth & development

My other contributions to global entrepreneurship:

4.  As a thought leader & advocate of VC, entrepreneurship and innovation to solve global challenges, I conceive and deliver keynote talks and Master Classes to engage stakeholders with the ability, interest and resources to finance technology commercialization and early stage venture capital.  View my publictions which spread ideas—solutions to create more investment, innovation and entrepreneurship.

Let’s engage, how make an impact, make money and have fun. Contact me at Tom@IVIpe.com. Learn more at Scaling Up Innovation.

Links: Evolution of Runet (Russia Internet) & the Russia Tech Scene

Top 10 Web Start-up CEOs in Russia, 2011

Top 10 Russian Web Startups of 2011

Top 30 Russian Internet Companies (Forbes, 2011)

Top 10 start-ups of 2009

Top 10 Internet Entrepreneurs, 2009

Top 10 Internet CEOs in Russia

Top 10 Russian Venture Capital Internet Investors 2009

Top 10 Russian Web Startups, 2008

Top 10 Russian Web Apps & Sites, 2007

http://www.eddy.lt/2011/12/10-must-know-facts-about-russian.html#!/2011/12/10-must-know-facts-about-russian.html

http://goaleurope.com/2012/04/21/eastern-europe-weekly-news-from-eastern-europe-baltics-russia-ukraine-and-poland/

http://thenextweb.com/russia/2012/04/19/skolkovo-stimulating-russias-it-industry-by-spending-stupid-money-smartly/

http://thenextweb.com/russia/2012/04/20/already-europes-largest-internet-market-and-still-growing-astoundingly-fast-russia-by-the-numbers/

http://thenextweb.com/russia/

http://www.marchmontnews.com/Archive/News/18636.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part II: The Cultures of Risk—Financing the Startup of Start-up Communities

Subjects in this post:

1.)   The Cultural Divide:  What Investors ‘Buy’

2.)   What Investors Fear

3.)   The Culture of Venture Capital:  Friend or Foe?

Last time in Part I, I discussed:

1.)   First, Three Definitions

2.)   The Russia Tech Scene

3.)   Growth in Russia

4.)   What Changed for Growth to Emerge

5.)   The Spark that Ignited the Start-up of Russia

Read Part I.

Read the Introduction to the series.

Summary from Part I:  Beginning about 2006, innovation became a priority of the Russian Government to diversify its economy from oil/gas with its multi-billion dollar investments in the Russian Venture Company and the Russian Corporation of Nanotechnology. Even with these investments, the needle of tech investment crept up ever so slowly in venture stage companies.

But everything changed beginning in the 2nd half of 2010; Russian entrepreneurs cloned US business models in Internet e-commerce, social and mobile with 20+ startups attracting more than $400 million in less than eighteen months through 2011.  For 2012 investment in start-ups and venture stage companies is estimated at between $800 million to $1 billion.

The ‘take-away. Russian entrepreneurs demonstrated that cloning established Western Internet business models and localizing them for the domestic market captures growth.  This was what domestic investors needed to open up their pocketbooks and spark the startup of Russia.

Ok, so, uhm—what’s so revolutionary about entrepreneurs cloning the ideas of others and investors financing start-up clones?

To answer this question, I discuss the culture of risk in the developing countries and how it impacts the behavior of local investors and their willingness to finance seed and early stage tech business models.  Then I contrast how their investment behavior differs from investors in the developed countries.

The Cultural Divide:  What Investors ‘Buy’

American tech and start-up entrepreneurs ‘sell opportunity’ to raise money. This works great in the United States since angel investors and venture capitalists are comfortable with risk, ambiguity and uncertainty, and willingly pay the costs of failure when business models don’t work, founders pivot and start-ups evolve into something different from entrepreneurs’ initial intentions.

Except for the very few, most local investors from Manila to Moscow and from Shanghai to San Paulo approach risk differently. Sure, opportunity is required for the financing of ventures.  But the risks of execution are more importance as the deciding factor since emerging market countries are opaque and with their lack of transparency—invisible risks and obstacles can cause even the most experienced investors to lose their entire investment:  Capital preservation drives financing decisions.

Consequently they buy ‘risk’ by investing in the known and understandable;  businesses and projects with markets and customers a 100% guarantee, where the risks of the investment are in the execution of building a factory or constructing a warehouse, creating a bank, establishing a chain of shops or restaurants as examples. These are the uncertainties they have dealt with as businessmen and investors, and have the experience to help entrepreneurs solve—avoid.

What Investors Fear

The risks of financing innovative firms, i.e., does a market exist, will customers buy, achieve promised performance—often technology based—are uncertainties too great for domestic investors in emerging markets since they add additional layers of risks to those of execution and involve a different sort of risk assessment—skills and experiences they frequently lack.

Clones overcome these fears since many generate revenues immediately, some from day #1, demonstrating that a market exists, the tech works, customers show up and pay.  With these risks behind the venture, the way forward is managing execution—risks that local money in emerging markets ‘buy:’  the tolerance of emerging markets investors for the US model of entrepreneurial experimentation, trial and error and the funding of pivots is zero.

Why is this so?  And how do we use this culture of investor risk-taking as our ally, to make amazing things happen; more entrepreneurship, more innovation and more investment for the start-up of start-up communities not only in Russia but throughout the emerging world from Chile to China, Kazakhstan to Kenya, India to Indonesia?

The Culture of Venture Capital:  Friend or Foe?

To obtain a deeper understanding why entrepreneurs and investors behave as they do in the emerging markets, we must look at an unlikely place to frame this discussion:  Silicon Valley.

 “Silicon Valley is the only place on Earth not trying to figure out how to become Silicon Valley.[1]

Silicon Valley’s greatest attribute is not its ability to finance the future and failure, but investors’ attitude to risk which shapes their risk taking, their acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty to early stage tech deals, thereby attracting entrepreneurs with the wildest (and craziest) ideas.

This behavior to risk is exemplified by the 2-6-2 distribution of returns rule.[2]

For every ten investments made by investors, two fail with all money lost, six return the original investment + a low to modest rate of return, with the remaining two generating breathtaking profits (Facebook, Google, Apple, Cisco, Oracle, Instagram and Microsoft as examples). These ‘superwinners’ as they are called, produce the superior rates of financial return that compensate for losing investments and slightly profitable ones.[3]

Of course one never knows in advance which investments will be superwinners or also-rans. Since Silicon Valley investors know that statistically they’ll invest in their fair share of superwinners, they have the confidence to finance the wild and crazy, a few which become successes. Superwinners breed or attract others to launch start-ups.  As more entrepreneurs enter the market, the number of new companies financed increases with less time required by investors to make the investment decision. More choice is what investors need since for every one investment, 99 are rejected;[4]  to consummate ten investments (the 2-6-2) an investor needs to see 1000 opportunities.  More choice attracts more capital to the start-up community as other investors jump in to finance the next set of superwinners.  The start-up community prospects and perpetuates to a thriving ecosystem.

Many superwinners did not start on the path to greatness, and they only found it after experimenting with different business models until they hit the bulls-eye;  others started down a path only to change direction—pivot—to find what the market and customers would accept.  Silicon Valley investors willingly finance early failures since they know statistically, many pivot to success as Google, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, PayPal and others did to achieve superwinning status. While it may seem counterintuitive, investors must finance failure since without them they are not taking enough risk.[5]

It’s this willingness to finance ambiguity and uncertainty that makes Silicon Valley—uhm—Silicon Valley.

The National Venture Capital Association (USA) estimates that in 2010 the US venture industry invested the equivalent of $3,945 per person living in the Silicon Valley area vs. $43 per person in the rest of the US, including other start-up communities like Boston and New York. That’s a 91:1 ratio.[6]

Go to my home state of Michigan and the number falls to $15 per person, a ratio of 263:1.[7] So the likelihood of a Detroit startup raising venture capital in Michigan is more difficult vs. Silicon Valley.

In Russia and other emerging market countries the amount of capital invested/population is even less than Michigan;  these regions lack the quality and quantity of deal flow that typifies the Valley and local investors are unwilling to fund experimentation, pivoting, trial and error in business model creation.  Since domestic investors buy the ‘risks’ of execution by investing in the known and understandable—businesses and projects with markets and customers a 100% guarantee (experimentation/pivoting not necessary)—the chances of superwinners being created and financed is remote:  Yet an increasing flow of future ‘superwinners’ is what’s required for local investors to invest in, and for a start-up community to crystalize.

That is until an event or series of events breaks this cycle to change the trajectory of the market.  In Russia it was the early and fast liquidity from the Groupon clone that demonstrated the merit of cloning Western business models plus the IPO of Mail.ru that minted the money for clone investment.  With the United States as the engine of start-up creation in the world, it was natural for Russians to copy, localize and paste clones into Russia, to capture the eyeballs and wallets of the Russian consumer. And then—the pocketbooks of investors too.

The chasm between the cultures of risk-taking by local investors in Russia and the risk of start-ups was crossed. Foes became friends. The start-up of Russia began. 

“But this is not the only contribution of clones to the startup of start-up communities.”

For Next Time—Part III:  The Power of Clones

In Part III, I discuss the multiplier effect in start-up creation that clones have in local market.  Clones do more than just build a local network of supply chain partners thereby increasing the # of startups for a startup community to emerge.  Their successes impact the DNA culture of investors to risk as they build new experiences in seed and early stage risk.  And they do so without taking the risks of opportunity that is normally associated with early stage companies since clones[8] demonstrate that a market exists, the tech works, customers ‘get it’ and pay.

Subjects in Part III:

1.)   Drive Growth and Innovation in the Supply Chain

2.)   Sidestep the Obstacles that Impede Scaling Up

3.)   Controversy of Clonentrepreneurship: Cloning the Idea or Hatching a Start-Up?

4.)   Spread of Clonentrepreneurship

Comments, opinions and questions are welcome here or send directly to me at Tom@IVIpe.com.

Be well and be lucky.

Tom Nastas


[1]Quote from Robert Metcalfe, father of Ethernet, founder of 3Com, author, pundit & conference host

[2] Author’s note:  The 2-6-2 distribution of returns rule is a term to describe the distribution of investment returns in a venture capital or private equity portfolio. The 2-6-2 rule comes from data collected and reported on the industry’s financial performance over a 40 year period from Cambridge Associates, the National Venture Capital Association and the Small Business Administration (which tracks investments made through the Small Business Investment Corporation program of the US Government).

[3] Author’s note:  While the 2-6-2 distribution of returns is an industry average, individual funds will have a different distribution of financial performance, e.g., some might have a result of 4-4-2, others a 1-9-0, others a 0-7-3, etc. Approximately 2% of investments since the 1980s have produced 98% of the financial returns realized in the venture capital industry (USA)

[4] Author’s note:  A rule of thumb in the industry.  Naturally some firms will be in the flow of ‘better’ investment opportunities and able to transact the necessary number of investments with a lessor number of total deals evaluated

[7] Source: Ibid

[8] Certainly all clones are not alike.  Prudent, wisdom and understanding of the local market is required in the selection of which business models to copy, localize and paste into an emerging market

 

 

The Valley of Death. Market Failure? Or Rational Behavior of Investors to Risk?

Governments, development banks and investors poured billions of dollars to finance entrepreneurs in the ‘Valley of Death.’ Add in the millions of hours of human energy and thought devoted to creating solutions too, and the investment is truly staggering. Yet the Valley of Death still exists.

Conventional thought defines the ‘Valley of Death’ as a market failure. But is it? Or is the Valley simply the rational behavior of investors to risk? If the Valley is a reaction to risk, not a market failure, then perhaps we need to reframe the discussion: what initiatives might influence investor behavior to close the gap that separates entrepreneurs and investment?

I delivered a program at the invitation of the World Bank and it’s investment arm, the International Finance Corporation, ‘Bridging the Valley of Death.’ In it I discuss solutions that match the behavior of investors to risk, to encourage investment to tech SMEs in the Valley of Death.

View the PPT by clicking on the below icon. After the icon is the description of the event and the invitation for World Bank and IFC staff to attend.

I added dozens of slides to make the Powerpoint understandable without my speaking (the audio), but more importantly, to make it a story of solutions and ideas worth spreading to influence the culture of risk and failure, and ways to impact investor behavior in emerging markets.

Add your comments or write me at Tom@IVIpe.com.

Description of the Event 

“Innovation starts with an idea to do something different, to improve the lives of customers, to make work that matters. Each step of the innovation process requires different forms of funding and different institutions to drive ideas forward, from R&D (grants) to Series A (equity-VC). But if the challenge was just to make funds available, the solution would be relatively easy.

US entrepreneurs ‘sell opportunity’ to attract investors, raise funds. This works in the USA since investors are comfortable with risk, ambiguity and uncertainty, and willingly pay the costs of failure when business models don’t work, founders pivot & models evolve into something different from entrepreneurs’ initial intentions.

Except for the very few, most investors in developing countries approach risk differently. They invest in known and understandable risks, mainly the risks of execution. These are the uncertainties they have dealt with as businessmen and investors, and have the experience to help entrepreneurs solve– avoid. The risks of financing innovative firms, i.e., will customers buy, are profits possible, achieve promised performance from new ideas – often technology based– involves a different sort of risk assessment – one that investors in developing countries are not used to. The result is that domestic wealth is not as big a source of funds as predicted, resulting in tech start-ups going unfunded, entrepreneurs frustrated and Governments wondering what to do next.”

In this brown bag lunch, Tom Nastas will discuss how policy-makers have tried to bridge this “valley of death” with a focus on public policy solutions to influence investor behavior toward angel, seed and early stage venture capital drawing on lessons from the battlefield.

1. Successes and disappointments. The cases of Croatia, Russia and Kazakhstan. Encouraging deal flow where opportunity is assured, to circumvent the risks of opportunity and ‘jump-start’ more investing, entrepreneurship and set the conditions for local knowledge creation to begin. The case of Boulder, Colorado — a world class hub for entrepreneurship, technology start-ups and venture capital without world class research universities in the local community.

2. Financing structures, grant programs & funds to better match the (im)maturity of developing ecosystems, solutions to overcome market barriers and smooth the entry of investors to early stage tech.  Role of government, DFIs & PPPs to support & encourage; do more faster.

3. Proof-of-concept program and skill transfer: the Nastas project with Russian Corporation of Nanotechnology, Universities of Colorado, Michigan & Utah

4. Deal flow funds to catalyze more ideas, achieve tech performance

5. SBIC venture lending-type funds to engage local pension funds in early stage SMEs

6. Illusion of ‘fund of funds’ :  when execute, when not to, how channel capital to tech

‘Scaling Up Entrepreneurship:’ A Master Class in Mentoring

The seed for this Master Class came about from a request of the US Embassy Moscow  to me in May 2010.  The Embassy was asked by the the Governor of Novosibirsk, Russia to organize a conference on solutions the region could implement to stimulate more innovation, venture capital and entrepreneurship.  My 60 minute presentation generated numerous questions that demonstrated the audience’s lack of understanding of what entrepreneurship is, how it and venture capital works, and actions government can implement to spur more innovation, technology creation and investment.

John Hoxmeier, Associate Dean, Graduate Studies at Colorado State University (CSU) learned about the Novosibirsk event and asked me to create a 3 day Master Class around the subjects of innovation, entrepreneurship and venture capital for CSU’s Executive MBA program in Kazan, Russia.  Students in the program hold senior positions in state owned enterprises, Ministries of ICT, Industry, Trade & Development, the Tatarstan Presidential Administration and Tatarstan’s sovereign wealth fund with responsibilities to help create more technology and knowledge based companies in the region.

Thereafter I added new content to the Master Class, and I’ve delivered it to staff of investment funds, entrepreneurs, incubators, technoparks, universities, economic development agencies and senior government officials in Croatia, Kazakhstan and the World Bank.

Click on the icon below to view the program in English, its content, learning and ‘Scaling Up Innovation’ objectives. Write me at Tom@IVIpe.com to learn more about this program & its delivery in your region or country to stimulate more innovation, entrepreneurship and venture capital.

To view the program in Russian language, just click on the below icon.