1Q VC Data: What Just Happened?

their own fundraising stories as they set out to raise the new funds, but to also exploit the robust public capital markets. Arguably, the rotation among industry categories reflects prior investment performance by category. Hardware-centric businesses and those with long product development cycles have chronically disappointed investors; where would biotech be right now, were it not for the “biotech bubble” we witnessed over the past six months?

The other barometer of risk-taking is first-time financings, which tracks companies receiving venture capital for the first time. Some interesting developments jump out of those data:

—First-time financings in the first quarter totaled $1.2 billion, or 13 percent of all investment activity, which compares (poorly) with 21 percent and 19 percent in last year’s first quarter and fourth quarter, respectively.

—Early-stage first-time financings constituted $830 million of that activity, which was down slightly from $887 million in the first quarter 2013, although expansion-stage deals showed a more marked decline to $135 million from $227 million in the prior quarter.

And I always get a kick out of some of the other data buried in the report…

—Twenty-three states had three or fewer venture investments in the first quarter. In fact, seven states had zero.

—California captured $5.5 billion of the $9.5 billion invested, which was up substantially as a percentage of total dollars invested from the same period last year: 58 percent, compared with 48 percent a year ago. That’s further concentration of activity, although for those of us not in California, it is important to note it is a huge state!

—Hawaii, on the other hand, had two venture-backed investments that raised in total $271,000. How cute.

—The top-10 venture investment rounds in the quarter were at least $100 million in size (are those venture deals, really?), with Dropbox’s $325 million registering as the largest raise. And there were no healthcare companies on this list. These mega-rounds reflect funds with either too much capital or a strategy to anoint winners and thereby chill any competitive companies being launched. But will they drive great returns? Stay tuned.

This essay originally appeared on Michael Greeley’s blog and is reposted by permission.

Author: Michael A. Greeley

Michael is a General Partner at Flare Capital Partners. Prior to co-founding Flare Capital Partners, Michael was the founding General Partner of Flybridge Capital Partners where he led the firm’s healthcare investments. Current and prior board seats include BlueTarp Financial, Circulation, EndoGastric Solutions, Explorys, Functional Neuromodulation, HealthVerity, Iora Health, MicroCHIPS, Nuvesse, PolyRemedy, Predictive Biosciences, Predilytics, T2 Biosystems, TARIS Biomedical, VidSys and Welltok. Previously, Michael focused on emerging-growth company financings with Polaris Venture Partners, was a senior vice president and founding partner of GCC Investments, and held positions at Wasserstein Perella & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston. Michael currently serves as chairman of the Entrepreneurship Committee of the Massachusetts Information Collaborative and on the Investment Committee for the Partners Innovation Fund and Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary. Michael also serves on the Industry Advisory Board of the Cleveland Clinic and Boston Children’s Hospital, as well as serving on several other boards including the New England Investors’ Committee of Capital Innovation. He was the former chairman of the New England Venture Capital Association and on the Executive Committee of the board of the National Venture Capital Association. Named by the Boston Globe as the “Go-To” investor for life sciences, healthcare and medical devices and a Mass High Tech All-Star, Michael earned a B.A. with honors in chemistry from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Michael authors a blog focused on venture capital, innovation and healthcare at www.ontheflyingbridge.com.