Elite VC giants still investing | Search | Steve Lisson | Austin, TX | February 2015 | Review: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TX STEPHEN N. LISSON AUSTIN TE...
Elite VC giants still investing | Search | Steve Lisson | Austin, TX | February 2015 | Review: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TX STEPHEN N. LISSON AUSTIN TE...: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TX STEPHEN N. LISSON AUSTIN TEXAS: STEVE LISSON : Blogger: User Profile: Steve Lisson Austin TX STEVE LISSON - About...
INITIATE PUBLICATIONS - LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION NETWORK CORPORATION (LINC) - INSIDERVC.COM: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TEXAS JANUARY 2015: Profiles |...
INITIATE PUBLICATIONS - LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION NETWORK CORPORATION (LINC) - INSIDERVC.COM: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TEXAS JANUARY 2015: Profiles |...: STEVE LISSON AUSTIN TEXAS JANUARY 2015: Profiles | Search | Steve | Austin | Texas | Lisson | Latest | Website | List | February 2015 | Stev...
Steve Lisson | Austin, TX | January 2015: Latest Profile Report Steve Lisson Website Review...
Steve Lisson | Austin, TX | January 2015: Latest Profile Report Steve Lisson Website Review...: STEVE LISSON on Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/stevelisson/ · steve lisson austin tx stephen n. lisson austin texas txcour...
Matrix Edges Kleiner | Steve Lisson
Steve Lisson Austin TX Stephen N. Lisson Austin TX Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas
Matrix Edges Kleiner
by Paul Shread
January 29, 2001--Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and
Matrix Partners are considered the cream of the crop among venture capital firms, the kind
of VCs that limited partners are fortunate to be able to invest their money with.by Paul Shread
So compliments paid, we set out to find out which was better.
Using the data of Steve Lisson, editor of InsiderVC.com, who tracks VCs' performance and considers Matrix and Kleiner the top VCs, we applied a metric suggested by former Flatiron partner Dan Malven, which we will call the "Malven Metric."
Malven suggested the metric after our piece comparing Kleiner's performance in the IPO market last year with four other firms. In short, we divide overall performance by the number of partners, thus measuring wealth created per partner.
Malven cautions that that measure of performance could be skewed if each partner at one firm has a lot more to invest than partners at another firm, but Kleiner and Matrix appear pretty evenly matched. Matrix IV in 1995 was a $125 million fund (and had distributed 11 times that amount to its limited partners by the middle of last year, according to Lisson), and Matrix V in 1998 was a $200 million fund that had already distributed four times its LPs' capital by mid-2000. Using the conservative figure of five partners during the time that 2000 IPOs were being funded, that means Matrix partners had $65 million each to work with. (We did not include Matrix VI, a $304 million fund that was only 30% invested as of June 30 last year.)
Kleiner VIII in 1996 was a $299 million fund that had returned 12 times its LPs' capital by mid-2000, according to Lisson. Kleiner IX in 1999 was a $460 million fund that was 80% invested by mid-2000. Using the conservative figure of 13 partners, Kleiner partners had $58 million each to work with.
Now on to the 2000 results. Ten of Kleiner's companies went public in 2000 (0.77 IPO per partner), compared to 4 for Matrix (0.80 IPO per partner). Kleiner's stake in those companies was worth about $2.3 billion when the lock-up period expired (one company, Cosine Communications, is still in lock-up, and Kleiner's stake in the company is worth about $100 million). Matrix's stake in its four IPOs was worth about $1.6 billion when they came out of lock-up. That gives Matrix a per-partner return of $320 million, and Kleiner $177 million, giving the edge in per-partner wealth creation to Matrix.
A few caveats on those results. First, we measured performance in the IPO market only; we did not look at acquisitions, the number of which often exceeds IPOs in a given year. Second, Kleiner has two health care partners, according to Malven. Since health care companies had a tough year in the IPO market last year (Kleiner had no health care IPOs), reporting the results based on IT partners only raises Kleiner's per-partner wealth creation to $209 million. We certainly want our top VCs to focus on the future of health care regardless of market conditions, and there's been quite a debate going on within the venture capital industry about IT versus health care investing. The third caveat is that Kleiner IX is the newest of the funds measured, so that too could give Matrix an edge. But don't feel too bad for Kleiner; according to Lisson, 6-year-old Kleiner VII was the best-performing venture fund last year, still riding high on its monster hit Juniper Networks (NASDAQ:JNPR). That fund has returned more than 20 times its limited partners' capital.
Matrix's big hit of 2000 was Arrowpoint Communications, which netted Matrix $1 billion when it was acquired by Cisco (Nasdaq:CSCO) in June. Kleiner had holdings in three IPOs that were worth $500 million or more when they came out of lock up: ONI Systems (Nasdaq:ONIS), Handspring (Nasdaq:HAND) and Corvis (Nasdaq:CORV).
It's not clear when or if the VCs sold shares in the IPOs. Cisco's stock, for example, has declined almost 40% since the Arrowpoint deal closed. Kleiner's biggest winners have held their value since the lock-up period expired, but both companies had holdings that declined substantially from their lock-up expiration price.
Both firms also had about $2 billion each in 1999 IPOs that came out of lock-up in 2000, giving Matrix the "Malven Metric" edge there too.
But as Lisson pointed out, "This is splitting hairs amidst the pinnacle of the field. A fun, interesting and worthwhile analysis, but the distinction makes no difference to investors in these funds. The amounts of money involved are trivial when viewed in context, the venture capital segment in the alternatives portion of an entire portfolio. Nonetheless, the LPs of both Kleiner and Matrix can thank their lucky stars to be in these funds. It is amazing how these and a few other elite firms can put so much distance between themselves and the rest of field, repeatedly, in bad times as well as good."
And finally, a follow-up to last week's column on Summit Partners, the most recent firm to join the elite $2 billion fund club. Lisson had this to say of Summit: "As a private equity investor, Summit can outperform some early-stage VCs, the reverse of how it's supposed to work. Now that's a firm where unquestionably 'there's something in the water' consistently over the years."
Corey Ostman of Alert-IPO and Mary Evelyn Arnold of VC Buzz provided research for this article.
Steve Lisson Austin TX Stephen N. Lisson Austin TX Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas
Steve Lisson profiles | February 2015 | STEPHEN N. LISSON, Plaintiff
Steve Lisson Austin TX Stephen N. Lisson Austin TX Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas
V I R G I N I A :
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND
John Marshall Courts Building
400 North Ninth Street
STEPHEN N. LISSON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM )
)
and )
)
WILLIAM H. LEIGHTY, )
Respondents. )
ORDER
On the 30th day of October, 2001, came
the parties in person and by counsel upon the Petition; upon the Grounds of
Defense; upon the Demurrers; upon evidence heard ore tenus; upon the
representation of the parties that a settlement had been reached and was argued
by counsel.
UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s Petition is sufficient to state a cause of action; that the
Demurrers should be overruled; that the parties have arrived at a settlement
whereby: (1) Respondents have agreed to
pay to Petitioner the sum of Seven Thousand Dollars and no/100
($7,000.00); (2) the Petitioner has agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of all
of his outstanding claims against Respondents; and (3) Respondents have agreed
that the dismissal of claims by Petitioner shall not prejudice any right he has
or may have to obtain documents from Respondents subsequent to October 30,
2001, whether such requests for documents be for the same documents previously
requested or documents similar thereto or documents of any nature whatesoever.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this cause be and
the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice;
And this cause is hereby removed from the docket and
placed among the ended causes.
ENTER: / /
__________________________________
Judge
We
Ask For This:
____________________________p.q.
Larry
A. Pochucha, Esquire
Attorney
for Stephen N. Lisson
VSB
No. 15674
COATES
& DAVENPORT
5206 Markel Road
P.O. Box 11787
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804)
285-7000
Facsimile:
(804) 285-2849
___________________________p.d.
Michael
Jackson, Esquire
Attorney
for Virginia
Retirement System
Assistant
Attorney General
State
of Virginia
900 E. Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804)
786-6055
Facsimile:
(804) 786-0781
____________________________p.d.
Robert A. Dybing, Esquire
Attorney for William H. Leighty
Shuford, Rubin & Gibney, P.C.
P.O.
Box 675
Suite 1250, Seven Hundred
Building
Richmond, Virginia 23218
Office (804) 648-4442
Telefax (804) 648-4450
Steve Lisson Austin TX Stephen N. Lisson Austin TX Steve Lisson Austin Texas Stephen N. Lisson Austin Texas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)