Comments on: Venture Deals Thrive in Colorado – Really?

By: You Don’t Mean Average, You Mean Median

You Don’t Mean Average, You Mean Median — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:38:41 +0000

[...] Every quarter, without fail, a bunch of articles appear talking about the venture capital industries investment pace as a result of the PWC MoneyTree report. I used to get calls from all of the Denver / Boulder area reporters about my thoughts on these – that eventually stopped when I started responding “who gives a fuck?” [...]

By: Jack Krupansky

Jack Krupansky — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:44:16 +0000

These may not be the numbers that are really needed, but they’re the only ones we have to work with. The question to be answered is whether we’re creating VC-funded jobs at a sufficient pace to try to put a lot of the unemployed and underemployed (like me) back to work. Old Economy companies and Old Technology companies (like HP) are still shedding jobs, so the pace of formation of new ventures (and associated *domestic* jobs) is rather important.

Granted, raw numbers don’t guarantee quality of jobs and sustainability for the longer-term [remember the dot-com and telecom VC boom?], but we’ve got to start somewhere.

That said, I don’t need to read what the media writes or what you have to say since I get (some of) the raw data delivered to my inbox for my own analysis anyway.

Personally, I do want to see the data (minus editorial commentary). If for no other reason that to get a feel for whether VC-funded ventures will ever again return to sufficient health so that I can once again be fully employed. What the latest data tells me is that we still have quite a way to go. High-end job formation is really the pits, compared to the current over-supply of technology workers, at least for now.

BTW, I don’t think the funding data is inflation adjusted, so it is a little misleading when comparing to say 1995 or 1998.

I do agree that the survey guys should probably throw out “outliers”.

– Jack Krupansky

By: Dave Jilk

Dave Jilk — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:17:38 +0000

Although I don’t know who else might be interested in the numbers, I do know that economic development people and politicians are interested in them. States/regions are always looking to improve their business formation climate and venture capital is of course a relevant factor there. Of course, there is too much emphasis placed on VC money in that arena as well, treating it as a panacea, much like entrepreneurs view a VC funding as an unambiguously good thing. VC funded startups, especially today, have a tendency to be built and then get bought, and the acquirers only sometimes keep the operation where it is. So although it’s good for economic development, it doesn’t necessarily have the long-term leverage on the local economy that local or non-VC-funded businesses do (put another way, if they’re just moving out after they’re sold, you need a certain level of VC investment every year just to tread water).

On your analysis of excluding Webroot, to really compare this correctly one should look back at the year ago numbers and see if there are any anomalous results there as well. I’ve noticed that many quarters there’s an oddball large deal.