Uploaded bya16z
U.S. Technology Funding -- What's Going On?
The document analyzes trends in U.S. technology funding and the phenomenon of 'unicorns' (private companies valued at over $1 billion) as of June 2015. It highlights a shift from public to private market investments with a significant increase in funding for late-stage companies, while traditional IPOs have declined dramatically. Despite concerns of a potential tech bubble, the data suggests that earnings are driving returns and that e-commerce continues to grow, indicating a dynamic but cautious market environment.
More Related Content
Similar to U.S. Technology Funding -- What's Going On?
![[PREMONEY MIAMI] Upfront Ventures >> Mark Suster, "Venture Outlook 2015 Goldr...](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/goldrushorfoolsgold1-150320110316-conversion-gate01-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
U.S. Technology Funding -- What's Going On?
- 1. US TECH FUNDING Morgan Ben der, B en edict E v an s, Scot t Ku por J u n e 20 15
- 2. 2 What’s going onin the public markets? What are all these “unicorns”? What’s going on in venture capital?
- 3. 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010 US tech IPO & private funding ($bn) The starting point – what’s going on? 34 years of US tech funding Source: Capital IQ, Jay Ritter, University of Florida, NVCA, a16z IPO Private 2014
- 4. 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010 US tech IPO & private funding ($bn, 2014 dollars) …inflation adjusted (Can you spot the bubble?) Source: Capital IQ, Jay Ritter, University of Florida, NVCA, a16z IPO Private 2014
- 5. The argument against atech bubble
- 6. 6 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1990 1995 20002005 2010 2015 S&P IT index (adjusted for inflation) Tech market indices are approaching the levels of 1999… Source: Bloomberg
- 7. 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1990 1995 20002005 2010 2015 ForwardP/Emultiple Indexprice S&P IT index (adjusted for inflation) But, earnings, not P/E multiples, are growing This time, profits are driving returns – in fact, P/E multiples are at early 1990s levels Source: Bloomberg Forward P/E multiple Index
- 8. 8 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 S&P IT index market cap as % of S&P 500 market cap Tech’s contribution to S&P is flat Public tech companies’ share of the overall US stock market is stable for 14 years Source: Bloomberg
- 9. 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 1995 2000 20142020 Billion people online And market size is for real this time The internet is working now – from 40 million people online to 4 billion Source: ITU, a16z Smartphones People online
- 10. 10 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Tech funding per US internet user ($, 2014 dollars) Funding per person online US funding per internet user has been roughly flat since the bubble Source: Capital IQ, ITU, US Census, a16z Public $ / user Private $ / user
- 11. 11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 US online revenues ($bn, 2014 dollars) People are spending (lots of) money online US ecommerce + online ad revenue has increased ~15x since 1999 Source: US Census Bureau, IAB/PwC, a16z Online advertising Ecommerce
- 12. 12 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 US retail revenue ($bn, 2014 dollars) And there’s more to come Ecommerce is still only 6% of US retail revenue – far more room to grow Source: US Census Bureau, a16z Ecommerce Retail ex. Ecommerce
- 13. 13 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010 US tech funding (IPO + private) as % GDP So funding as share of GDP looks moderate Steady growth in funding reflects the scale of the opportunity Source: Capital IQ, Jay Ritter, University of Florida, NVCA, BEA, a16z 2014
- 14. 14 “It’s different thistime.” *2014 dollars, venture & IPO. Source: Capital IQ, Bloomberg, BEA, ITU, US Census, Jay Ritter, University of Florida, a16z 1999 2014 US tech funding $* $71bn $48bn Funding as % US Tech GDP 10.8% 2.6% S&P IT index forward P/E 39.0x 16.1x Global internet population 0.4bn people 3bn people US ecommerce revenues* $12bn $304bn Number of IPOs 371 53 Median time to IPO 4 Years 11 Years
- 15. 15 It’s different thistime. But, it’s always different! So what’s going on now?
- 16. The unicorn huntis a big difference
- 17. 17 The headlines areominous. 61 US tech “unicorns” (private company with >$1bn valuation). 75% of the largest VC investments have been raised in the last 5 years. Source: Capital IQ, CB Insights, a16z
- 18. 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1997 1998 19992000 2011 2012 2013 2014 US IPO and private tech funding by round size ($bn, 2014 dollars) But, the funding surge is in late-stage only The funding explosion in 1999-2000 was at every stage – in 2014 it isn’t Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $40m+ Private $1-40m IPO
- 19. 19 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Aggregate funding for top 20 US tech private deals ($bn, 2014 dollars) Yes, there is more funding for larger deals The top 20 private deals have suddenly become very large Source: Capital IQ, a16z
- 20. 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Aggregate funding for top 20 US tech deals ($bn, 2014 dollars) But, this is just a rebalancing from IPOs The top 20 deals used to be mostly IPOs – now they’re almost all private Source: Capital IQ, a16z IPO Private
- 21. 21 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010 NumberofIPOs IPOfunding($bn) US tech IPO funding ($bn, 2014 dollars) and number of IPOs And tech IPOs are essentially dead The tech IPO market is at early 1980’s volumes Source: Jay Ritter, University of Florida IPO funding Number of IPOs 2014
- 22. 22 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1980 1985 19901995 2000 2005 2010 US tech IPO & private funding IPOs used to be the norm – but no more For most of the ‘90s the majority of tech funding was public – this has reversed Source: Capital IQ, Jay Ritter, University of Florida, NVCA, a16z IPO Private 2014
- 23. 23 0 50 100 150 200 250 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Median revenue at IPO ($m, 2014 dollars) The bar for an IPO is now much higher It used to be routine to hit $20m revenues and go public – not any more Source: Jay Ritter, University of Florida
- 24. 24 Many companies thatwould in the past have done an IPO are now doing late-stage private rounds. As you get to $40+ million rounds, these are effectively “quasi-IPOs.” These deals have different financials, investors, and risk profiles to classic venture.
- 25. 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 US tech IPO vs. quasi-IPO late-stage rounds ($bn, 2014 dollars) Mix shifted from IPO to late-stage rounds Quasi-IPOs are now 75% of investment dollars vs. 40% in the bubble Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $40m+ IPO
- 26. 26 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 US tech IPO versus quasi-IPO late stage rounds ($bn, 2014 dollars) Public and private tech funding merge And at modest levels – even combining public and private financing Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $40m+ Private $1-40m IPO
- 27. 27 As IPOs aredelayed, returns move from public to private investors. Thus, traditional public market investors and buyout funds, who would not typically invest in companies at this stage, have moved into the private markets.
- 28. 28 0 5 10 15 20 1998 2000 20022004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Number of top 20 US tech deals with participation from non-traditional investors Non-traditional investors drive growth rounds Source: Capital IQ, a16z
- 29. 29 Because the returnshave moved Tech returns used to be in public markets – have now shifted to private * Market cap at IPO. Source: Capital IQ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Apple (1980) Microsoft (1986) Oracle (1986) Amazon (1997) Google (2004) Salesforce (2004) LinkedIn (2011) Yelp (2012) Facebook (2012) Twitter (2013) Private versus public market value creation for select public US tech companies Public value creation* Private value creation
- 30. 30 Almost all thereturns are now private Old world tech giants returned plenty in public markets – new ones have not Note: see endnotes for methodology. Source: Capital IQ, Pitchbook, Quora, a16z 0x 200x 400x 600x 800x 1000x 1200x Apple (1980) Microsoft (1986) Oracle (1986) Amazon (1997) Google (2004) Salesforce (2004) LinkedIn (2011) Yelp (2012) Facebook (2012) Twitter (2013) Private versus public market return multiples for select public US tech companies Public value creation Private value creation
- 31. 31 0 10 20 30 40 50 Facebook (2012) Twitter (2013) LinkedIn (2011) Yelp (2012) Implied market capwith similar post-IPO returns to Microsoft ($tr) And you can’t make it back by waiting For Facebook to match Microsoft’s public market returns, it would need to be worth $45tr Note: Calculated from market cap at first close post-IPO. Source: Capital IQ, BEA Current US GDP
- 32. 32 741 374 369 277 212 199 171151 151 145 111 77 40 38 29 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Market Cap ($bn) Finally, all unicorns combined = ~1 Facebook If you’re investing for growth, would you rather own 2/3 of Microsoft or the index of unicorns? Note: Market cap data as of 6/5/15. Source: Capital IQ, CB Insights All 61 $1bn+ US tech “unicorns” as of 6/9/15 All $1bn+ US tech “unicorns” ex Uber
- 33. Meanwhile, back in venturecapital…
- 34. 34 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1970 1975 19801985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 US tech VC fund inflows ($bn, 2014 dollars) No surge in VC fundraising Source: NVCA, a16z VC funding is growing moderately 2014
- 35. 35 And relative tooutput, fundraising is down VC funding as a percentage of tech GDP is down by half from 1980 Note: Value-added Tech GDP used for Tech GDP. Source: BEA, NVCA, a16z 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18% 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 US tech VC fund inflows as % of tech GDP 2014
- 36. 36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dollars raised by round cohort and year ($bn, 2014 dollars) Large rounds raise lots of money (obviously) Overall dollars raised are dominated by quasi-IPOs (which arguably aren’t even really VC) Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $40m+ Private $25-40m IPO Private $10-25m Private $1-10m
- 37. 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dollars raised by round cohort and year ($bn, 2014 dollars) Funding looks more moderate elsewhere The total money going into deals under $40m is back to 2001 levels Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $25-40m Private $10-25m Private $1-10m
- 38. 38 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Companies raising rounds by round cohort and year (000s) Late-stage is a small part of the ecosystem But things are changing elsewhere, as the number of companies raising capital has doubled since 2009 Source: Capital IQ, a16z Private $40m+ Private $25-40m IPO Private $10-25m Private $1-10m
- 39. 39 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Indexed US tech funding for $1m-$40m rounds (2014 dollars) More rounds, smaller rounds 2.5x more rounds while the round size dropped by a third – the mix is shifting Source: Capital IQ, a16z Average round size Number of rounds Aggregate $ raised
- 40. 40 The collapse inthe cost of creating tech companies in the last two decades means many more are being created. With each one needing less money to get started, there are a lot more small rounds. That is, there is a surge in seed-stage funding.
- 41. 41 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of rounds by cohort Seed rounds have grown dramatically $1-2m rounds have increased over 7x in the last decade (and this data probably doesn’t capture all of them) Source: Capital IQ, a16z $3-6m rounds $1-2m rounds
- 42. 42 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Aggregate US tech investment by round size cohort ($bn, 2014 dollars) But absolute seed dollars remain small Amount raised in $1-2m rounds is up 7x over 10 years, but still only $1.1bn (~5% of all sub- $40m deal funding) Source: Capital IQ, a16z $1-2m rounds $3-6m rounds
- 43. 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Total private + IPO funding by company age at funding, 1995-2014 ($bn, 2014 dollars) Company age makes the shift clearer The bubble saw a surge of funding of very young companies that’s not been repeated Source: Capital IQ, a16z 1999–2001 2012–2014
- 44. 44 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total US tech funding by age cohort ($bn, 2014 dollars) 55% of bubble $ to <2 year old companies Versus 80% of current funding going to +3-year-old companies Source: Capital IQ, a16z 0-2 years old +3-year-old
- 45. 45 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of US tech deals by company age at round Deal volume is back up… More tech companies are being created Source: Capital IQ, a16z 0-2 years old +3-year-old
- 46. 46 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average US tech funding size by age at funding, IPO and private ($m, 2014 dollars) But round sizes are down for early-stage Source: Capital IQ, a16z 0-2 years old +3-year-old
- 47. 47 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Indexed US tech funding for 0-2 year old companies (2014 dollars) The cost of tech company creation is falling Source: Capital IQ, a16z Average round size Number of rounds Aggregate $ raised
- 48. 48 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 2004 2005 20062007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Indexed US tech funding for 0-2 year old companies (2014 dollars) Let’s take a closer look at round size Average round size is flat over the last 6-7 years, while deal count has more than doubled Source: Capital IQ, a16z Average round size Aggregate $ raised
- 49. 49 Less money, moremoney Which one do you want to believe? Both! Order of magnitude reduction in the cost of creating a software company Shift from expensive hardware and software to cloud, open source, GitHub, etc. So, more company creation, more rounds, smaller round sizes The seed surge It’s never been cheaper to create software companies Funding is cheap But scaling to address 3bn people is not War for talent (and office space) in SF Round sizes for hot deals have moved upwards But scaling to address the opportunity costs money
- 50. 50 The shift inmix Less money, more early stage Source: Capital IQ, a16z 70.9 48.1 1999 2014 Total funding by deal type ($bn, 2014 dollars) $1-10m $10-25m $25-40m $40m+ & IPO 2,192 2,293 1999 2014 Number of companies raising rounds $1-10m $10-25m $25-40m $40m+ & IPO
- 51. 51 Round sizes aremostly flat (to down). Late-stage round sizes are not spreading down the chain. It’s never been cheaper to build a tech company. Company creation is increasing (good!).
- 52.
- 53. 53 A note ondata Sharing the perspectives and analyses presented in this deck required a time series of overall funding. However, there is no source of comprehensive (let alone granular) deal-level data that goes back before the late 1990s. Therefore, we were obliged to vet and combine incomplete data from multiple sources. Where some data sets were more comprehensive on broad parameters but limited in historical range, others were broader than our definitions of software tech (e.g., they included medical devices). There were other screening differences as well; for example as larger deals became more commonplace but were not referred to as “venture” funding, we looked to a different source that would allow us to roll up that deal-level data as shown in this deck. To ensure as much rigor as possible in sourcing our data, we compared data from several sources against each other and then collated and de-duped it into a master data set for a few years which we then checked for accuracy across each of those sources to determine the best ones. While there are many caveats (and counterarguments!) we could make about the data given various tradeoffs, here are some of the key things to note when reviewing this deck: 1. Historical transaction-level data is much more robust after 1996 than before it. We also had to fuse together different data sets, using Jay Ritter & NVCA before 1996 and Capital IQ after 1996 and merging them at the join. 2. The data set for age at funding is not complete and becomes less complete the further back we go, especially before 1996. From 1998 to 2001 we are also missing founding year data for 20% of deals, versus 3% for later deals. The missing companies will skew heavily to small and/or young companies, so adding this data would show an even greater swing than the one we point to in this presentation. Notes for slide 30: Microsoft, Oracle & Amazon Series A valuations assumed at $3m for illustrative purpose; Series A to IPO represents return multiple from Series A valuation to market cap at first close post-IPO