This first map provides multiple connections of Haas alumni to extant companies. Companies appear if there are two or more Haas alumni as board/management team members in the LinkSV database.

Example 1

Here, we see that two companies have three or more Haas affiliations: Tube Mogul has three management team members from Haas and Delivery Agent has one management team member and two board members from Haas. Exploring further, below is a map of Haas alumni that currently have the title CEO (registrants goto Person Filters Title=CEO and Apply Changes).

Example 2

Here, we see a list of 12 people who are currently CEOs at companies. This could be expanded further by clicking “add to map” for any of the 12 people. Roost CEO Alex Chang was added to the map and then we removed Haas as a target node. You can double-click on any person to pop-up their LinkSV bio.

Example 3

Here, we see Alex Chang’s multiple ties to Juliya Rubin (TotalMove, Roost) and Myles Felsing (Haas, Middlebury).

The next examples are two Cluster Maps, which effectively removes Haas as a target node and highlights other pre-existing relationships amongst its alumni (MinLink=3) map which only depicts triads or greater clusters.

Example 4

Here, note the strong relationship to Accenture (n=8). Note again ties to TubeMogul and Delivery Agent.

The next map is the Haas Cluster Map with School Nodes Collapsed into Links (registrants goto Information window Controls).

Example 5

Here, note two large clusters in the map.

We can specify these clusters from the information window Controls by unchecking Collapse School and checking Collapse Companies, Investors, and Experience, leading us to…

Example 6

Here we see the aforementioned Haas clusters as other university ties, the strongest tie being UC Berkeley (+non-MBA degree, n=32), followed by Stanford (n=9), Cornell (n=8), UC-Davis (n=5). This map can be used to identify potential Haas groups based on common education affiliation. Note how double Berkeley Alumni can be identified as strong School Ties toward potential collaborative efforts. It is surprising to note the high number of ties to Cornell (my old stomping grounds) and the surprising Upstate NY-Bay Area connection.

We hope you can use some of the new features of LinkSViewer 1.3 to your own strategic advantage. Feel free to sign up for a free two-week membership by clicking on Free Trial Registration.

Some potential questions (with TheFunded.com in mind):

• What are the investment relations of the VC(s)?
• How are they related to other VCs?
• How are they related to board members and/or management team members?
• What other companies has the VC (or multiple VCs) invested in? 
• In what sector? 
• Over the what time period? 
• With what keywords? 

Let’s look at an example:

True Ventures is currently rated as one of the top VC firms by the members at TheFunded.  Let’s examine the relational network map for True Ventures’ portfolio companies in the Silicon Valley:

True Ventures Relational Map.  Notes: (1) All of the active companies are private companies (blue rectangles); (2) Three Angel investors (yellow ovals) have multiple capital relations with True Ventures: Auren Hoffman (Meebo & BrightRoll) and Michael Tanne & Jeff Clavier (BrightRoll & Maya’s Mom) have two common investment ties with True Ventures; (3) Three Board/Management Team Members (tan ovals) have board/management team interlocks with Sphere and Automattic: Phil Black (True Ventures), Toni Schneider (True Ventures & Automattic CEO), and Matt Mullenweg (Automattic founding executive).  Double click on each tan oval in the map for their LinkSV bio (in a new window).  Here is a complete view of all of the relations for True Ventures Silicon Valley active companies (including all co-investors and related management team and board members). (Source: LinkSV.com)

Here we gain a sense of the Silicon Valley company portfolio of True Ventures as it relates to its co-investors and board/management team interlocks.  LinksViewer provides a handy (and clickable) representation of the relational capital for each VC firm.  Below are some other potentially interesting maps for start-up entrepreneurs: 

Sequoia Capital + Accel Partners: Round 1-2 Internet Sector companies funded in 2005 or later 

Sequoia Capital + Accel Partners: Round 1-2 Keyword “Wireless” companies funded in 2005 or later

Entrepreneurs are encouraged to try out LinkSViewer for a free two-week trial (particularly when in capital-seeking mode).  This allows the user access to multiple map views, search, filtering, and a number of other features.  After the two-week trial, LinkSViewer is available on a per seat monthly subscription basis for $25/month.  Check it out, it may save you money in the long run…

Trading Details: SHOR was originally priced at $10.50 (at the top end of its range) on June 28th and then was re-priced at $9.50 (at its mid-range) when it opened on July 3 (it opened to the public at $10.00).  ShoreTel ended up at $12.15 (+27.89% from IPO price) after its first day of trading.  It closed at $12.77 (+34.44% from IPO price) in Day 2 trading. 

IPO Delay Background: ShoreTel was set to trade on June 28th, then got hit with a patent suit by Mitel Networks (ShoreTel CEO John Combs‘ ex-company) on the eve of its IPO.  If you read into the infringed patent claims, the details do not seem to affect core business processes (realize that I am no patent attorney, but I can differentiate between features and core technologies): (1) Automatic Web Page Generator; (2) Portable telephone user profiles using central computer; (3) Automatic telephone feature selector; and (4) Local area communications server.  It is of no surprise that Mitel also filed for its IPO, so its timing on the patent suit presumably had a modus operandi.  ShoreTel plans to defend the lawsuit, issuing a statement that ”We believe we have meritorious defenses to Mitel’s claims.”  In any case, the suit seemingly resulted in a 5-day delay in ShoreTel’s IPO and a $1.00 reduction in its original offering price. 

Relational Capital Update: I have argued in the past that the strategic investment connections (as a form of relational capital) bode well for a company about to go public (See CapitalBLOG post, Infinera IPO Soars: Why Relational Capital Matters).  For example, I was (serendipitously) examining the investment capital network of Apple and Google and stumbled upon the below map.  The main hypothesis here is the “Midas touch” exemplified by the co-investment ties of Apple and Google as a predictor of successful IPO companies. 

Google+Apple Investment Relational Map (Pendants dropped).  Notes: (1) Of the 52 related active companies on the map, 22 are private, 6 are acquired, and 24 are public = 46% linked public companies (a very high relative percentage); (2) note the presence of ties to recently successful IPOs Infinera and Aruba Networks; and (3) note the presence of Apple’s ties to ShoreTel Networks also noting its proximity to Lam Research, another successful public company.  ShoreTel–>SoarTel?

Conclusion: ShoreTel continues to have an upside considering its recent activity and patterns in comparison to its recent IPO brethren of Aruba Networks (ARUN) and Infinera (INFN).  Realize that I do not consider myself as an investment expert, only a network analyst identifying strategically connected IPOs and then tracking trends associated with their related companies. 

Example 1:  I am interested in recent investor activity in 1st round SV-companies the Internet sector (let’s say I was an investor who wants to keep abreast of other investor activity).  Who were the most active investors over the past 3 months in funding Internet sector start-ups?

From the LinkSViewer home page, I started at the Search Most Active Investor Networks and from each pull-down menus I selected All Investors, 1st Round, 7 days, 3 Months, and Internet Sector, and clicked on Show Results.  The results returned 8 matching investors (Shasta Ventures, Jeff Clavier, Ron Conway, Emergence Capital, Greylock, Khosla, NEA, and Redpoint), listing the number of investments in this time period, name of investor, and total number of investments.  At this point I can select any combination of the results in displaying the map.  For this example, I selected all of the investors (Clicking on the first entry and then holding the shift key on the last entry) and clicked Show Relational map.  

Relational Map of Most Active Investors in 1st Round SV Internet companies over the past 3 months.  Notes: (1) Conway and Clavier both invested in Kaboodle; (2) Redpoint and Greylock both invested in Oodle; (3) Emergence and Shasta both invested in Lithium Tech.; and (4) NEA and Shasta are linked by Nikhyl Singhal (SayNow Founder & Teracent Board advisor). (Source: LinkSV.com)

Realize a few things from the above map: (1) the results indicate the most active investors in your chosen time period (i.e., those with more than one investment); (2) the resultant companies shown on the map are filtered to meet your chosen activity specifications (i.e., 1st round Internet companies over the past 3 months) - this is by default displayed at the top of the map to remind you of how companies on the maps are filtered; and (3) each of the filters can be changed by clicking on the Company Filter link (top center) which allows on-the-fly changes to your current settings (round, sector, or funding dates) or other settings (including amount of capital, company keyword, or start year).   

Example 2:  I am looking for Internet VCs (let’s say I am a 1st-round funded Web 2.0 company looking for 2nd round financing).  What VCs invested in 2nd round Internet companies this past year?

From the LinkSViewer home page, I started at the Search Recent Funding Networks and from each pull-down menus I selected Venture, 2nd Round, 12 Months, and Internet sector, and clicked on Show Results.  The results returned 16 investors listing the number of investments in this time period, name of investor, and total number of investments.  At this point I can select any combination of the results in displaying the map.  For this example, I selected the 6 VCs with 3 or more investments fitting my activity criteria investors (Clicking on Sequoia and then holding the shift key on Lightspeed) and clicked Show Relational map.

Last year 2nd Round Internet investors Relational Map.  Notes: (1) Sequoia Capital has the most investments (5) with co-investments with DFJ (Meebo), Lightspeed (RockYou!, TutorVista, & NetPickle), and Accel (AdMob); (2) Benchmark Capital has the 2nd most investments (4) with co-investments with DAG Ventures (Gaia) and Accel (AdMob); and (3) Randy Kormisar (KPCB) is the only board member on the map via DAG/KPCB co-investment (Aggregate Knowledge & Pinger).

Of course there are several ways to further explore investor activity maps.  I provide a few of these below:

Most Active Individual (Angel) Investors in the Internet Sector over the past 2 Years.  Ron Conway, Jeff Clavier, Josh Kopelman, and Reid Hoffman are the most active investors in this space over the past two years.  Note how 10 other angel investors (yellow) appear on the relational map as well as 4 earlier-stage VC firms.

Last Year Most Active Biotech Investors People Map (Pendants dropped).  Note the large number of board interlocks for active investors in the Biotech sector. 

• What companies recently received funding? (Focus of this post)
• What investors have been recently active? (Next post)

Example 1:  I am interested in recent SV-funded companies (let’s say I was on vacation).  Who was funded in the past week?

From the LinkSViewer home page, I started at the Search Recent Funding Networks and from each pull-down menus I selected All Rounds, 7 days, and All Sectors, and clicked on Show Results.  Very handy/time-saving.  The results returned 8 companies (DVC Labs, Eye-Fi, iKoa, Luminescent, M-Factor, Roxro Pharma, Silver Spring Networks, & Telltale Games), listing the company name, number of investors, and funding date.  At this point I can select any combination of the results in displaying the map.  For this example, I selected DVC Labs and Eye-Fi (clicking on the DVC Labs and holding onto the Ctrl key while clicking on Eye-Fi) and clicked Show Relational map.

Relational Map of DVC Labs and Eye-Fi.  Notes: (1) the board interlock between Larry Orr (Trinity Ventures) and Carl Showalter (Opus Capital): Orr sits on the board of DVC Labs, Showalter sits on the board of Eye-Fi, and they both sit on the board of Identity Engines; (2) DVC Labs has two VC investors, Matrix & Trinity - they were also one of five investors in Aruba Networks, a recently successful IPO. 

Example 2:  I am looking for Internet companies funded over the past three months (let’s say I am a Web 2.0 angel investor interested in the recent landscape).  What Internet start-ups got funded over the past 90 days?

From the LinkSViewer home page, I started at the Search Recent Funding Networks and from each pull-down menus I selected All Rounds, 7 days, and All Sectors, and clicked on Show Results.  The results returned 9 companies listing the company name, number of investors, and funding date.  At this point I can select any combination of the results in displaying the map.  For this example, I selected all of the 9 companies together (Clicking on the first entry and then holding the shift key on the last entry).  Their Relational Map is below:

Last 90 days Funded Internet Companies Relational Map.  Notes: (1) SnapLogic, lala, and Multiverse are isolates in the network; and (2) NEA is a central investor in the network even though they only invested in on of the 9 companies (Vibrynt) - NEA has common investment/board ties to 6 recently funded Internet companies.

Of course there are several ways to further explore the preceding map.  I provide a few of these below:

Last 90 days Funded Internet Companies Relational Map (Pendants dropped).  This amplifies the connectivity in the preceding map (e.g., NEA ties).  One large connected component dominates this map, tying together 6 target companies.

Last 90 days Funded Internet Companies Relational Map (Pendants dropped, Company filter = Internet sector companies only).  This further segments the preceding map to only contain linking Internet companies.  Note how NEA’s centrality is reduced and Peter Thiel’s connecting role is amplified. 

Om Malik references a Wired.com post (Fred Vogelstein) on next week’s expected alliance between Google & Apple (cloud computing partnership).  This post reminds us of the extent of the board ties between Apple and Google:

Apple + Google People Relational Map. Notes: (1) Direct Board Ties of Eric Schmidt (Google CEO), Arthur Levinson (Genentech CEO), & Al Gore (Advisor on Google); (2) Indirect Board Ties between John Doerr (KPCB, Apple Board) & Bill Campbell (Intuit Past CEO, Google Board); and (3) Sequoia Capital invested in both companies (albeit Apple went public in 1980). (Source: LinkSV.com).

Thus it should not be a surprise that Apple and Google are teaming up on anything.  While they may have a mutual enemy in Microsoft (although Jobs recent appearance with Gates tempers this a bit), they actually have similar board leadership.  Behind the scenes, there may be more collaboration than we know.  For example, take the Google Maps integration on the upcoming iPhone.  For previous CapitalBLOG commentary on the Google/Apple connection check out Apple and Google - Network Clusters and Interlocks (9/16/06).

Infinera had a 14M share offering with a price range of $10-12, it priced at $13 and opened yesterday at $16.04.  It closed at $19.71 after reaching a high of $21.24 in mid-day trading (low = $16.00).  As a result, Infinera (INFN) was up 52% if you got in at the IPO and up 23% if you got in at the opening bell.  This is particularly noteworthy because the NASDAQ was down 1.77% yesterday.  From the CNN article, independent IPO analyst Tom Taulli states, “In hindsight [Infinera] looks like it was underpriced.”  This hails the sentiment I offered in my March 2 blog post, Infinera IPO Filing: The Juniper Net Works?  Here I was bullish on Infinera because of its relational capital via co-investor ties to 24 public companies and multiple board ties to Juniper Networks.  I repeat two of these maps below:

Infinera Investment Relational Map. Notes: (1) Juniper Networks as both an investor (orange oval) and related company (green box) via Kleiner Perkins & JAFCO; (2) Kleiner multiple public co-investment ties to Venrock (Photon Dynamics, Pharmacyclics, Geron, Echelon, & NeoMagic) & Sprout (Synaptics, Verifone, & eHealth); and (3) 17 investors on the map reflecting 7 rounds of capital ($315M total raised). (Source: LinkSV.com)

Infinera & Juniper Networks Board Relational Map (Pendants dropped).  Notes: (1) Direct tie to Pradeep Singh (Juniper CTO/Founder); (2) Multiple direct ties (Kenneth Goldman, Pradeep Singh, & Vinod Khosla (Former)); and (3) Multiple indirect ties (Alex Balkanski, Reed Hundt, Dan Maydin, & Peter Wagner (Former)). (Source: LinkSV.com)

Two interesting changes on the map occurred since the March 2 post: (1) Reed Hundt (Former FCC Chair) now on the Board of Infinera; and (2) Vinod Khosla (Khosla Ventures, Former KPCB) now a former board member on Infinera.  Such changes are important to note in the days preceding the IPO. 

My main point is that relational capital networks provide valuable additional information for IPOs.  A couple of key factors make IPOs particularly salient for capital network analysis: (1) S-1 filings indicate the actual amounts and percentages of ownership in the company (this becomes public for the first time); (2) Investors and board members care greatly about early-IPO pricings because federal regulations require a lock in period of at least 180 days before such insiders can sell their shares; and (3) When insider shares are sold, they typically trigger immediate market reaction. 

Don’t get me wrong, fundamentals are important in predicting IPO success, but they do not tell the whole story.  Look for key relationships (such as the Juniper tie, public company affiliations, key co-investments, and people ties such as Reed Hundt now on the board) to add to the data gathering process for IPOs.  LinkSViewer maps assist in this process because (1) pictures are quick reads (important in a time crunch), (2) network maps depict relationships in one place (and can be manipulated by the end user); and (3) this information is available much prior to the IPO (known at time of filing).  Realize that our source of data (LinkSV), only reports on (in the most part) Silicon Valley hi-tech companies, investors, and management teams - as a result there may be some missing information.  At the time of IPO, however, any information is golden because of the high level of uncertainty in at IPO.  Pricings factor in fundamentals, but to what extent do they include relationships?  I claim this is a key strategic advantage for would be institutional investors and day traders.  I repeat and expand upon the earlier quote:

“In hindsight [Infinera] looks like it was underpriced,” said independent IPO analyst Tom Taulli. “But it’s tough to get these things right. The market has been down quite a bit for the last couple days, but it really hasn’t impacted high-flier IPOs.”

Two of Taulli’s points are of further interest: (1) “…hasn’t impacted high-flier IPOs” demonstrates how IPO speculation can be used as part of a hedge strategy countering overall market inertia (at least in the current environment) - this was exemplified by the Infinera gain on a bloody market day; and (2) ”…it’s tough to get these things right” underscores the amount of incomplete information associated with an IPO.  More on this last point…reducing uncertainty requires a wide variety of sources such as network analysis in evaluating upcoming IPOs.  For example, I examine the pedigree of co-investors in an IPO company based on the idea that “success breeds success.”  Yet, this type of speculation has garnered some negative criticism.  As an example, I recall a comment I posted on the GigaOm website on debt-laden IPOs.  My comment touted Aruba Networks (prior to its IPO) based on its pedigree of investors Sequoia Capital and Matrix Partners:

Interesting post. Clearly there is a strange dynamic based on the BigBand and Clearwire IPOs. Who says the stock market is rational? Another way to speculate about IPOs is based on investor pedigree. I posted an item to our blog (2/7/07) illustrating the investment networks of BigBand, GluMobile, and Aruba. Of the three, Aruba has the best pedigree with their ties to Sequoia Capital and Matrix Partners (Apple & SanDisk as other co-investments). For those interested:
http://linksviewer.com/blog/?p=40

The comment elicited the following response:

Pedigree? Voodoo science…very irrational way to look at IPO’s or a company’s survability. Think about competition, product portfolio, and profits to get past smoking mirrors.

I found it unnecessary to comment on the above response because Aruba Networks (ARUN) gained 29% on its IPO date (3/26/07) and is currently one of the top IPOs in 2007.  This reply actually reiterated my point - that IPOs are often irrational.  The key point is that they are not necessarily irrelational.  Competition, product portfolio, and profits are presumably figured into the price point as valuation indicators.  But how can you put a price on capital relationships?  Realize that I consider myself an outsider on investing matters, merely pointing those in the know to information and metrics that may not be readily available and thus not factored into IPO initial pricings.  As another example, even after the Infinera IPO, I found no sources that tied Infinera to Juniper Networks.  IPO speculators, I surmise, are hungry for any information that provides them a strategic advantage - and capital networks and IPO network metrics seek to fill this void.  By the way, Infinera was up another 28% closing at $25.16 today (a 94% gain from its IPO price).  For more information behind the Infinera IPO, check out GigaOm’s recent post: From Zepton to Infinera, a start-up story.

Scribd + Geoffrey Yang Relational Map: Notes (1) Redpoint/Yang connection to BigBand Networks (recent IPO); (2) Yang’s board presence on Tivo and Ask.com (purchased by IAC in 2005 for $1.9B).  In general, Yang’s presence on the Scribd board provides an additional source of relational capital for the company.