The VC manifesto: Special pleading for a damaged cause:Commentary on Simon Witney interview

摘要

First, the facts. Simon Witney's interview~1 starts from reviewing the British Venture CapitalAssociation (BVCA's) Venture Manifesto (VM), and so we should start there too, distasteful as itis to wade through six pages of apologia for one of the less useful parts of the Europeaneconomy. Nothing in the VM is obviously factually wrong (I hasten to say, as lawyers are eagerin the wings). For example, the BVCA `VM' states that many US companies, having gainedinitial funding in the United States, are moving to Europe. True, but this is to gain liquidityand funding on London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) or benefit fromEuropean grant schemes, and is nothing to do with European Venture Capital (VC). They saythat 100 exits over ￡100 million have been achieved since 2004. True, but virtually all havebeen from companies receiving VC funds late in their development if at all, not VC-backedstart-ups. L434 million was invested in what the BVCA describes as early stage start-ups in2007, but what is early stage? What was invested in 2008, when they actually needed it more?(One 'early stage' BVCA investor member has turned down a 3-year-old biotech with stronganimal Proof of Concept (PoC) data, good patents, world-class science and a signedpharmaceutical company development collaboration because they were 'too early.') And so on.In short, the tone of the VM is so completely at odds with what has been happening on theground in biotech in the United Kingdom that one wonders what in decade the VM waswritten. I have described at far greater length what VC has really done to biotech in the UnitedKingdom, as well as showing on the basis of more robust data than the BVCA is willing torelease (and Witney is willing to discuss) how poorly biotech VC has performed in reality. Ifbudding entrepreneurs want to know what VC really does, they should read that.