stephennlisson.blogspot.com

Friday, February 06, 2015

Saturday, October 18, 2014


Steve Lisson, Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX

WALTHAM'S MATRIX LEADING VENTURE PACK ON BOTH COASTS

Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas InsiderVC.com InsiderVC Insider VC

WALTHAM'S MATRIX LEADING VENTURE PACK ON BOTH COASTS
FIRM CREDITS DISCIPLINE, INSISTENCE ON LEAD ROLE FOR STUNNING '90S RETURNS

    Author: By Beth Healy, Globe Staff Date: 11/12/2000 Page: D1 Section: Business

BUSINESS & MONEY WALTHAM - Paul Ferri keeps two client letters framed on the wall behind his office door in this suburban haven of venture capital.

One letter, dated Sept. 12, 1994, informs the Matrix Partners founder that an overseas investment group would sit out that year's venture portfolio. Results in Fund II had not wowed the group, and it was "premature to make a judgment on Matrix Partners III."

Talk about an expensive decision.

The other letter, sent in April 1995, contains a rave from an elated American investor: "I have never seen a portfolio explode on the upside as has Matrix III in the past year."

Matrix hasn't opened its venture funds to new investors since. The firm has emerged as one of the best performers in the business, according to several investment sources, with a stunning 95 percent average annual return over the past decade. It's a record that rivals even the venture industry's Silicon Valley titans. And the returns on Matrix's latest fund appear to be unrivaled on either coast.

This is fighting talk in venture circles, where egos are huge and investment results are guarded like family secrets. But with the stock market in the doldrums and dot-com flops deflating venture returns after three sizzling years, it's a good time to take a peek and see who has really made money in this field.

Stephen N. Lisson, a writer in Austin, Texas, tracks top venture players on his Web site, InsiderVC.com, much to the chagrin of the venture firms. He has sparked controversy for researching and posting the returns on his site, but his numbers, when checked with independent sources, appear to be correct or in the ballpark.

According to Lisson's numbers, Matrix's Fund V, a $200 million fund launched in 1998, is the best venture fund of all time, with a 725 percent return. Lisson says it's really too soon to judge funds of the 1998 vintage because they're young and many of their portfolio companies haven't been sold or taken public, or left to die yet. Venture funds, after all, have 10-year lives. But in the case of Matrix V, he says, "Even if everything else in the fund tanked, the internal rate of return of 725 percent would stand."

This fund claims several hot deals, including telecom IPO juggernauts Sycamore Networks Inc. and Sonus Networks, which turned early-stage investments of $17 million into holdings worth more than $3 billion. Of the $450 million Matrix invested from funds III, IV, and V, about $220 million went into companies that have gone public or have been sold. That $220 million has returned more than $11.5 billion, the firm says.

Matrix partner Timothy Barrows says a sharp discipline kept the firm away from the dot-com mania that clouded the judgment of many venture firms.

"There are things we could have made money on," Barrows says. "We turned down Geo Cities," a company that helps people launch Web sites.

But Barrows and his six Matrix partners can only feel good about getting into telecom and optical firms early, focusing on infrastructure and, more recently, storage. The firm is famous for putting entrepreneurs from its past successes, like Cascade Communications and Apollo, to work at the new firms. And it simply won't do deals unless it's the lead investor, in first, with board seats.

The recipe has paid off handsomely for entrepreneurs, too. Matrix has helped create more than 2,500 millionaires at its portfolio companies. More than 40 of those people can claim a net worth exceeding $100 million, the firm estimates.

Ferri says the firm wasn't always this good.

To some extent, he understands why that overseas investor fired the firm in 1994. Matrix's first two funds posted above-average returns, he said, but they were nothing special.

"We looked like everyone else," Ferri says. "There was no reason anyone would come to see Matrix specifically."

But the firm was in the process of a makeover it had started in 1990. It decided to turn more attention to New England, instead of investing two-thirds of its assets in Silicon Valley. It stopped investing in medical devices and retail and focused only on high-tech start-ups. And it decided to do only hands-on deals.

"If we're not the largest investors in a deal, we're not in a deal," Ferri says.

Thirty years in the business has paid off, the 61-year-old veteran says. He's not at all surprised by the carnage and losses overwhelming the new entrants to the business, from fly-by-night incubators to start-up venture firms.

"It looks like an easy business to be good at," Ferri says. As a result, over the past few years, pension funds and other big investors have flooded venture funds with cash. "They've been giving money to a lot of people who don't have a clue as to what they're doing."

All the best firms do have a clue, of course. Other top funds of venture capital's record decade include Sequoia Capital's Fund VIII, with a return of nearly 402 percent, and Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers' Fund VIII, with a return of 350 percent. These two firms are considered the most successful and most experienced of Silicon Valley.

Lisson's long view, assessing all the top firms over the past decade, is this: "Vintage year after vintage year, fund after fund, there is no question that Sequoia and Matrix will be at the top."

People who run university endowments and foundations corroborate Matrix's reputation. In the same company, venture experts put Boston's venerable Greylock Management Corp.; North Bridge Venture Partners of Waltham; Kleiner, Perkins; Benchmark Capital Partners - the Silicon Valley firm of eBay fame - and Redpoint Ventures, also of the Valley.

In the next breath come Battery Ventures of Wellesley, Charles River Ventures of Waltham, and Oak Investment Partners of Westport, Conn.

There are dozens of other fine firms with great returns. But only one can be the best. One Boston endowment investor who has money in many top venture funds - speaking on condition of anonymity, so he wouldn't anger several successful and hyper-competitive venture players - says of Matrix, "The last three funds have been extraordinary."

"Matrix," he adds, "is in a league of their own."



SIDEBAR 1:
THE VC ALL STARS
PLEASE REFER TO MICROFILM FOR CHART DATA

SIDEBAR 2:
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS 3RD QUARTER
PLEASE REFER TO MICROFILM FOR CHART DATA




Click here for advertiser information    


   
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company
   
Boston Globe Extranet
Extending our newspaper services to the web
   
Return to the home page
of The Globe Online


This article is an electronic reprint from The Boston Globe.

Click here to request reprints for your company or organization.

Links
Archives
Contents
Home delivery



Search the Globe:

Today
Yesterday

The Boston Globe OnlineBoston.com Boston Globe Online / Archives

Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas InsiderVC.com InsiderVC Insider VC

STEPHENNLISSON

Saturday, October 17, 2014

Wednesday, June 25, 2014


http://elitevcgiantsstillinvesting.blogspot.com/2012/07/stevelisson-steve-lisson-stephen-lisson.html

Elite VC giants still investing

San Jose Mercury News
Matt Marshall
May 31, 2001

Now that they've gone gorilla size, will the elite venture capital firms help stem the downturn in venture capital investing?

After the March 2000 market crash, elite VCs scrambled to triage their portfolios. Only recently have they started to peer out of the graveyard.

But they've undergone a profound change in nature: They've become monsters. This is good if you're an entrepreneur shooting for the moon. It's fatal if not.

In 1995, only one top-tier fund, TA Associates, had raised a billion dollars. But since the crash, 15 top-tier firms have raised funds of that size or more. Many -- including Worldview Technology Partners, Greylock, Austin Ventures and Oak Investment Partners -- announced their new funds this year, well after most of the market damage.

Steve Lisson, of InsiderVC.com, says the amount of funds raised since the crash goes against the "drought" thesis.

"The perception that there's going to be less venture investing is totally misplaced," he says. "These VCs need to get into lucrative investment opportunities, and they're going to want larger stakes. They're going to have to step on the gas even more."

Similarly, he adds, if an entrepreneur offers an opportunity for a "mega" investment, he'll be able to negotiate more favorable terms, because the big venture capitalists will all want in. On the downside, entrepreneurs that don't show home-run promise will struggle.

True, some VCs that raised large funds say they have slowed their investment pace. Flip Gianos, partner at InterWest Partners, said his firm hadn't expected the magnitude of the downturn when it raised its fund. If it takes waiting a year for strong opportunities to come along, VCs will wait, he says.

Others counter that size has forced them to invest more in later-stage start-ups because they soak up more money. Michael Darby, general partner at Battery Ventures, says his firm still focuses on early stage deals, but "in this environment, the fact that we want to deploy capital means we're looking at those later-stage deals."

There's another reason for hope after the crash, Lisson says. Many VC firms have been able to negotiate stellar terms with their investors -- even better than those they negotiated just a couple of years ago. That's also a sign that investors still have faith in the VCs, he said.

Steve Lisson | Stephen Lisson | StephenNLisson | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas | Austin TX

Steve Lisson, Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX, Steve Lisson Austin TX, Stephen Lisson Austin Texas

Steve Lisson | Stephen Lisson | StephenNLisson | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas | Austin TX
STEVE.LISSON, STEVE LISSON, STEPHEN LISSON, STEPHAN N. LISSON, STEPHAN LISSON, LISSON STEPHAN, AUSTIN, TX, TEXAS, STEPHEN N. LISSON, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, LISSON STEPHEN N., STEVE N. LISSON, STEVE, LISSON, INSIDER, VC, INSIDERVC, INSIDERVC.COM, (512), STEPHEN.LISSON, FACEBOOK, LINKEDIN, LINKED IN, TWITTER,

About Me

Steve Lisson | Stephen Lisson | StephenNLisson | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas | Austin TX Steve Lisson, Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX, Steve Lisson Austin TX, Stephen Lisson Austin Texas
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014


http://stephennlisson.blogspot.com/




Stephen N. Lisson, Austin TX

Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX





Saturday, March 15, 2014
Steve Lisson, STEVE LISSON, AUSTIN, TX, STEPHEN N. LISSON, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, LISSON STEPHEN N., STEVE N. LISSON, STEVE, LISSON, INSIDER, VC, INSIDERVC, INSIDERVC.COM
Rumors of Benchmark's Demise Greatly Exaggerated
For weeks, rumors have been circulating in the VC community that Benchmark Capital's third fund, Benchmark III, was in trouble, hit hard by losses in e-commerce companies like 1-800-Flowers.com.
Benchmark denies the rumors, and its limited partners say they never received the rumored letter that the fund was in trouble. An analysis of Benchmark's portfolio appears to back up the firm, which despite the rumors, may not just be surviving, but thriving.
Benchmark declined to discuss details, but the firm's holdings as of June 30 were provided by Steve Lisson, the editor of InsiderVC.com, who tracks the performance of leading venture firms for high-paying clients.
At first glance, Benchmark III had its share of overvalued B2C e-commerce firms like 1-800-Flowers.com (Nasdaq:FLWS) and Living.com. 1-800-Flowers.com was the fund's biggest investment, at $18.9 million, and had been marked down to $8.1 million on June 30. The stock price has declined about 30% since then. "There are many private scenarios just like this public one, whereby even if the company can be kept afloat long enough to enjoy some success and eventually make it to a liquidity event, the venture investors will lose money," Lisson said.
But a closer look at Benchmark III reveals a fund with several potential winners, including Internet Data Exchange System company CoreExpress, an intelligent optical networking play. That investment alone could return limited partners' money. Other potential winners include Sigma Networks, Keen.com, Netigy and BridgeSpan.
And Benchmark's newest fund, Benchmark IV, is already showing the markings of a winner, thanks to investments in Loudcloud, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen's latest venture, and TellMe Networks, whose valuation no doubt went up in its recent $125 million funding round.
Lisson said the Benchmark rumors reflect a misunderstanding of how venture funds operate. "There's a reason these are 10-year funds," he said. "It's called risk and illiquidity. The one monster hit could happen three, four or five years out. You can be wrong about 39 of 40 companies, and the market uncooperative, as long as one is an Inktomi. That is the history of this industry: one monster hit returning the entire fund. Singles and doubles won't get you there."
At two years of age, Benchmark III still has plenty of time to deliver a big winner. In the meantime, the firm's limited partners can enjoy the returns from Benchmark II, a three-year-old fund that has already distributed five times its partners capital, by Lisson's estimate. Benchmark II boasted big winners like Handspring (Nasdaq:HAND), Critical Path (Nasdaq:CPTH), Red Hat (Nasdaq:RHAT), and Scient (Nasdaq:SCNT). Yes, Scient. Benchmark had the foresight to distribute shares of the Internet consultant to its limited partners at 200-300 times the firm's cost.
Benchmark isn't any different from other venture firms, most of whom "drank the Kool-aid" of seemingly easy dot-com money, hoping the stock market would hold up long enough to vindicate those investments. But Lisson expects that some other firms won't hold up as well. He expects a shakeout in the industry similar to the one that hit the industry from 1987-1991, when venture firms formed during the 1980s averaged single-digit returns, and roughly 20% of new entrants couldn't return their partners' capital. VCs' own fundraising declined from $4.2 billion in 1987 to $1.3 billion in 1991. The $4 billion level of capital coming into the industry wasn't reached again until 1995.
"This is what's supposed to happen in a downturn," Lisson said. "People who shouldn't be in the business, who contributed to the excesses and didn't know what they were doing, will be forced out. It's not like this is the first time we've seen too many new entrants into the industry, or too much money chasing too few deals." And the ones that survive will have a chance to prove themselves in tough times, the ultimate mark of a winner.
Lisson said a few venture firms stand out among their peers. Matrix Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia can normally be found at the top of the charts in each vintage year they raise a fund, he said, proving that "something's in the water" at those firms. And he gives Oak high marks for consistency over a long period of time.
But even top firms have an occasional weak fund, Lisson said. "But by the time you can make that judgment about a fund, you'll have raised another fund and shown some early progress," he said. Meaning that even if Benchmark III was a weak fund, Benchmark IV could keep the firm in its limited partners' good graces for some time to come.
"The moral is consistent performance over time relative to same vintage-year peers," Lisson said. "You're never as good or as bad as your current press clippings might indicate. The real test of Benchmark's mettle will come when we can fairly evaluate whether the firm manages through and makes money, not just with small funds during the best times in the industry's history, but with larger funds in the tough times ahead as well."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2000, internet.com Corp. All Rights Reserved. Legal Notices, Privacy Policy, Reprints.



Monday, February 10, 2014



Steve Lisson, Stephen Lisson, Stephen N. Lisson Updated 8 minutes ago




Friday, January 31, 2014


Steve Lisson | Stephen Lisson | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas










InsiderVC.com pierces the VC industry’s verbal fog – Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Austin Texas

Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX, Steve Lisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Travis County, Texas, Steve Lisson, Austin, TX (512)
Friday, January 24, 2014
Steve Lisson | Stephen Lisson | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas
Transparency. Let’s have a round of applause for CalPers, the giant state pension fund, for transparency. Beth Healy of the Boston Globe (8/17/2001) reports Money managers aghast that pension investor shows returns, rankings. It’s a report card that has rocked the secretive venture capital world, and one that even the `A’ students didn’t care to see displayed on the refrigerator. Calpers, the giant California pension fund that sets trends for many large investors, has posted on its Web site the performance of every venture or buyout fund in which it’s invested for the past decade. Firms typically guard these numbers carefully, but the Calpers chart even says which funds are meeting expectations, and which are disappointments. … The industry buzz around the report stems from the secrecy with which venture firms and buyout artists guard the specifics of their returns. Virtually every firm claims ”top quartile” performance, and the numbers they give out are suspect, venture analysts say. Steve Lisson of Austin, Texas, on his controversial Web site, InsiderVC.com, tracks venture returns by doing his own calculations on venture portfolios. He is the only independent source on such numbers and has drawn fire from some venture capitalists for breaking the code of silence. … over the long term, Calpers has been doing something right. As of March 31, its average annual return for 10 years of private equity investing was 17.5%. The Wilshire 2500 Index, a broad stock market benchmark, was up 13.9% in that period. Would that the federal government would do the same with alleged investment programs like SBIR. Carl Nelson Consulting http://www.carl-nelson.com/government2001.htm Published by Carl Nelson Consulting, Inc, 1325 18th St NW, Washington DC 20036
Follow
Follow “lissonsteve”
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
  1. Steve Lisson
    Steve Lisson


Your changes have been saved
Stephen N. Lisson, Austin, Texas a minute ago
Stephen N. Lisson, Austin, Texas
What’s a VC to Do?
        Forbes.com
        What’s a VC to Do?
        Shelley Pannill, Forbes ASAP, 09.10.01
        Someone’s always looking for a bargain.
        As thousands of new economy startups crashed and burned this past year, speculation mounted that the venture capitalists they once enriched were now cautiously sitting on pots of gold and playing golf. But the VCs we talked to say it’s only the limited partners, the investors behind the venture funds, who get to perfect their putts.
        So what are these high-powered moneylenders up to now?
        Damage control. VCs, like the rest of us, have lost a lot of money lately. Some 25% are expected to go out of business over the next several years. “Sometimes your widget doesn’t widge,” says Alan Salzman, founding partner at VantagePoint Venture Partners. He should know. His firm recently faced the grim task of writing severance checks after one bankrupt portfolio company’s management team had squandered its money. Then there’s the job of smoothing things out at companies that survived but were merged, downsized, or acquired. Says Philip Gianos of InterWest Partners: “I’m acting like a marriage counselor, which is a full-time job right now.”
        Scouring the ocean floor. Last year, says one observer, “You felt lucky to be able to invest in a new technology startup.” This year, VCs get to play God, waiting to invest until impoverished companies are desperate for cash. “I’ve been out bargain shopping,” says Heidi Roizen of Softbank Venture Partners, sipping chardonnay on a rolling lawn at the Atherton, California, home of a fellow VC. “I can’t believe these valuations!”
        Revisiting old friendships. Last year’s “shootouts” for deals have subsided. VCs are again finding synergies with competitors. “The tourists are gone,” says Accel Partners über investor Jim Breyer, alluding to the rush of cash-happy hobbyists–both individuals and companies–combing the landscape for gold in recent years.
        Business as usual. Sort of. VCs are doing what they do best: investing in startups, although the pace has slowed. According to research firm Venture Economics, VC investments have fallen by nearly two-thirds, from $27.2 billion in Q2 last year to $10.6 billion in Q2 this year. Still, they’re actually spending more this year in some sectors, such as wireless, biotechnology, fiber optics, and data storage. E-commerce, of course, was the big loser, with VC investing sinking from $210 million in the first quarter of last year to $3.3 million by the fourth quarter.
        But venture capitalists had better keep investing, warns Steve Lisson, who runs the popular InsiderVC.com. According to data tracker VentureOne, 27 venture capital firms have completed raising funds of more than $1 billion each since the start of the dot-com doldrums in spring 2000. Says Lisson: “They’ve got to use it or lose it.”
Monday, December 2, 2013
Stephen N. Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas, Steve Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas
 Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX
Financial Investors? Us?
InsiderVC.com pierces the VC industry’s verbal fog.
1 April 01 12:14, Tsafrir Bashan Stephen N. Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas, Steve Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas Anyone carefully following the venture capital industry in Israel and overseas recognizes the routine. Managing partners talk at length and with great passion, but with very little substance. They gossip endlessly about the industry. What about the industry’s numbers? “We don’t disclose private data,” is the stock reply from industry players. Today, for example, everyone knows that the situation is bad, but it is hard to say who exactly is in a bad position. You won’t find a fund partner talking animatedly about a company shutting down or about a down round. The most you can expect is an admission that not everything is perfect. The absence of data is both odd and entertaining, particularly for an industry in which capital, finances, and yield are the key words. Without figures on the amount of a company’s holdings or valuations, the pompous phrase, “added value,” is all the venture capital industry has left to talk about. It is difficult to find a financial industry at any point in history that has provided so few figures. (Venture capital is a professional investment industry, regardless of how many partners talk about opening doors and assistance in recruiting executives). Against this rather frustrating background, it is worth consulting the US web site insiderVC.com. The site provides data for companies in the industry, such as profit and loss allocations between the general partner and the investors (the carry), the exact rate of management fees, and exact investments and valuations for portfolio companies at the various financing rounds. Of course, the site also includes derivative data, such as the internal rate of return (IRR) and the realization ratio. In other words, it provides the tools needed to compare various organizations and even different funds within the same organization, information you will not get from your local venture capital management partner. In order to gain access to all this data, you have to pay a considerable fee, but you can get a preview of the statistics and a sample of site editor Stephen Lisson’s sharp tongue free of charge. You won’t find better material on the web. Published by Israel’s Business Arena on March 29, 2001 Stephen Lisson, StephenNLisson, Stephen N. Lisson, Austin Texas, Austin TX
Stephen N. Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas, Steve Lisson, Austin, Travis County, Texas
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

About Me

Steve Lisson | Austin TX | Stephen N. Lisson | Austin Texas | Steve Lisson Austin TX | Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas

Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
ImageImageImage


Transparency. Let’s have a round of applause for CalPers, the giant state pension fund, for transparency. Beth Healy of the Boston Globe (8/17/2001) reports Money managers aghast that pension investor shows returns, rankings. It’s a report card that has rocked the secretive venture capital world, and one that even the `A’ students didn’t care to see displayed on the refrigerator. Calpers, the giant California pension fund that sets trends for many large investors, has posted on its Web site the performance of every venture or buyout fund in which it’s invested for the past decade. Firms typically guard these numbers carefully, but the Calpers chart even says which funds are meeting expectations, and which are disappointments. … The industry buzz around the report stems from the secrecy with which venture firms and buyout artists guard the specifics of their returns. Virtually every firm claims ”top quartile” performance, and the numbers they give out are suspect, venture analysts say. Steve Lisson of Austin, Texas, on his controversial Web site, InsiderVC.com, tracks venture returns by doing his own calculations on venture portfolios. He is the only independent source on such numbers and has drawn fire from some venture capitalists for breaking the code of silence. … over the long term, Calpers has been doing something right. As of March 31, its average annual return for 10 years of private equity investing was 17.5%. The Wilshire 2500 Index, a broad stock market benchmark, was up 13.9% in that period. Would that the federal government would do the same with alleged investment programs like SBIR. Carl Nelson Consulting http://www.carl-nelson.com/government2001.htm Published by Carl Nelson Consulting, Inc, 1325 18th St NW, Washington DC 20036


Follow

Follow “lissonsteve”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)



Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Simple template. Powered by Blogger.

Comments