capitalBLOG

1st Quarter 2007 Funding: Health vs. Internet Sectors

April 23, 2007 on 12:25 pm | In Company Analysis, Investor Analysis, In the news, Web 2.0, Year in Review |

VCs open pockets for health, but neglect IT (Venture Beat)

Venture Beat cites a VentureOne/Ernst&Young Report indicating a 65% increase in spending in 2007 Q1 in the Health Sector and only 10% in the Internet/Info. Services Sector.  I examined these two Sectors SV maps to: (1) see who the key investors were in each sector (and how they were related); and (2) look behind the numbers to see some general trends in these investments.  I started by mapping the most recently funded (1/1-3/1/07) Biotech + Medical sector companies (= Health).  I then filtered out all other companies and dropped pendants in the below Relational Investment Map. 

Health Company Investment Map (1-3/07).  Notes: (1) 19 companies funded in 2007Q1 are on the map; (2) 18 investors have at least 2 investments on the map; (3) Alta Partners has by far the most investments (=7: Aerovance, Sanarus, DiscoveRx, PneumRx, Intarcia, ChemoCentryx, & Coapt), followed by InterWest Partners (=4: Intarcia, TransOral, Fluidigm, & Gynesonics), and Bay City Capital (=3: Intarcia, Gentiae, & MAP); (4) Intarcia Pharma was invested in by all three key investors (+ NEA & NewLeaf); and (5) Optovue is the only company that does not have a linked investor on the map. (Source: LinkSV.com)

I next performed the same mapping strategy for Internet sector companies funded in 2007Q1.  I then filtered out all other companies and dropped pendants in the below Relational Investment Map. 

Internet Company Investment Map (1-3/07).  Notes: (1) 19 companies funded in 2007Q1 are on the map; (2) 8 investors have at least 2 investments on the map (6 VCs & 2 Angels); (3) DFJ has the most investments (=3: Meebo, Flurry, & Pulse Mobile), followed by InterWest Partners; (4) Meebo (DFJ & Sequoia), LinkedIn (Sequoia & Greylock), Vizu (Ron Conway & Mike Maples) are the only companies on the map with at least 2 of the key investors; and (5) LiveOps, cFares, Jacent, Outspark, Mino are all companies that do not have a linked investor on the map. (Source: LinkSV.com)

Map Comparison

A few main points should be gleaned by comparing the two maps:

• The number of companies on the map are the same (19)
• The number of investors on the map are different (18 for Health; 8 for Internet)
• General connectedness for the Health Investment Map is much higher than the Internet Investment Map
• Alta Partners is a key investor on the Health Map (7 investments)
• InterWest Partners (4 investments)
• Bay City Capital (3 investments)
• 15 other investors have 2 investments on the map
• No significant key investor distinguishes themselves on the Internet Map
• DFJ has the most investments (3)
• 7 others have 2 investments on the map
• 2 of these are angel investors (Ron Conway & Mike Maples)

Company Trends

Examination of the funding numbers (From LinkSV.com company summaries) provides some insight. On Average:

• Health companies were on Round 3.2; Internet = 2.3
• Health companies received $25M in recent Round funding; Internet = $8.9M
• Health companies received $65M in recent Round funding; Internet = $24M
• Health had 8.4 investors; Internet = 5.4
• Health $/Round = $20.4M; Internet $/Round = $10.6M
• Health $/Investor = $7.8M;; Internet $/Investor = $4.4M

Summary Stats

• Health companies had about 1 more Round than Internet companies
• Health companies received around 2.8X Round funding than Internet companies
• Health companies received around 2.8X Total funding than Internet companies
• Health had 3 more investors than Internet companies
• Health companies received around 2X as much Funding per Round as Internet companies
• Health companies received around 2X as much Funding per Investor as Internet companies

Conclusions

1. While Health companies received more funding than Internet companies, they were more mature
2. While Health companies received more funding than Internet companies, they needed more funding
3. While Health companies received more funding than Internet companies, they had more investors
4. While Health companies received more funding than Internet companies, their investors had to shell out more money

What this means is that the total 2007Q1 capital reported in the Venture One report is a bit misleading because Health Sector companies needed more capital than Internet companies.  The number of investments in each sector was equal (for SV companies).  Because Internet (particularly Web 2.0) companies generally require less start-up capital, the actual $ funded may not reflect activity trends, but rather perpetuate traditional VC investment patterns.  For example, 2 of the Internet company investors were Angel Investors reflecting early-stage companies - this implies that traditional VC funding may not be necessary for these companies.   The main conclusion here is that while funding for Health Sector companies was higher, activity (in terms of number of fundings) was the same as the Internet Sector (in SV). 

Realize that the maps only indicate SV activity, which comprises about 44% of the deal flow and 48% of the total capital, thus only including a sample of the VentureOne data.  From the VentureOne/Ernst&Young Report, the overall 2007Q1 vs. 2006Q1 funding for Information Services was up 10%.  Taking this report with a grain of salt, one would expect that Health-sector companies generally require more funding, have the propensity to mature to further rounds, and may not return $ on investment until later stages.  One noteworthy trend is that the costs associated with Health Sector seem to go up (following general economic indicators), while Internet start-up costs seem to be going down (following increased availability of applicable open-source tools).  Moreover, the Venture One trends seem to be charting VC activity versus angel investment activity (this I am not sure on).  If the data does not include angel activity, then the Internet sector investment activity may be on more of the same level as the Health sector.