John Backus: Dispelling Entrepreneur and VC Myths
Since my last post debunking the five alleged myths of entrepreneurs triggered more than a few comments and thoughtful reactions, I wanted to respond collectively to them.
First let’s start out with venture capital performance as an asset class. Over the last ten years, it has been terrible. On an absolute basis the returns are in the low single digits. My partner at New Atlantic Ventures, Todd Hixon recently weighed in on the shape of VC today here to explain what’s going on behind the scenes.
What caused this? VC managers got greedy in the 1999-2001 period as LPs threw more money at them. Fund sizes mushroomed at the same time that the IPO market dried up. They were caught with too much money in sub-par companies, and no way out but modest M&A for an exit. The math didn’t work. And, since on a dollar-weighted basis, the big funds drive the average returns, their performance drove the industry benchmarks. Just because the average VC return was terrible does not condemn every VC in the asset class.
From December 31, 2000 to August 12, 2011, NASDAQ has gone from 2470 to 2508. Not very impressive. Mirrors the performance of VC as an asset class. But of course we all know that had you bought Apple (10X), Amazon (5X), eBay (2X) and Netflix (25X) 10 years ago, and added Google (6X) along the way, you would be sitting pretty today. So just as an awful ten years for the NASDAQ does not condemn every tech stock, neither should the average performance of VC as an asset class condemn every VC. In fact, according to Cambridge Associates’ recent numbers, “Venture capital performance also surpassed the public market indices for the quarter, five-, 15- and 20-year time horizons as of the end of 2010.”
In terms of VCs displacing “their portfolio companies’ founding entrepreneurs with their own hand-picked industry veterans.” It does happen, but not always. It happens when performance at the portfolio company stinks – and the hope is that someone new at the top can change direction (often with little success). It happens when the growth of the business outstrips the growth of the entrepreneur – a high quality problem, usually resulting in the entrepreneur voluntarily moving to a functional role better matching his/her skill set. A careful reader of my post will note, however, that the most valuable companies I identified in my last post – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Intel and Amazon had founding entrepreneur CEOs for decades.
The gender issue sparked some strong opinions. Rather than have me go on, you’d probably prefer to hear from a woman – respected VCs in the industry like Deborah Farrington at StarVest and Scale Venture Partners’ Kate Mitchell (the current NVCA chair). But I will say this, yes in my personal defense: every firm has its own culture and operates differently. At our firm, we are looking to build businesses and make money for our LPs. We don’t care where you came from, or about your gender or ethnicity. We want to back the best and the brightest. Of the 19 companies we funded since January 2008, seven were funded by women, foreign-born entrepreneurs or minorities. Two of the ventures started by women-only teams – Fashion Playtes and Moda Operandi – are performing quite well. Those same women founders are still running their companies and have closed B rounds at up-round valuations with Fairhaven and NEA respectively.
A few might wonder if there is demand or a need for a group with a laser-like focus on helping women entrepreneurs. There is and it is called Springboard.
With our unemployment rate over nine percent, I’ll close with the jobs issue. I remain perplexed at those who don’t believe that VCs provide the matches and the lighter fluid to entrepreneurs who build big businesses. In fact, as one reader pointed out, The Kauffman Foundation issued a study that concluded “High-Growth Firms Account for Disproportionate Share of Job Creation.” We don’t do the hiring – our portfolio companies do – but I do think we deserve some credit for helping entrepreneurs turn their small businesses into big businesses. At our firm, over the last 11 years, we have backed 60 companies with $150M in capital across three funds. Those companies have created 10,000 jobs, the majority of which are in the United States and these companies did this with 100% private capital. I have spoken about this twice on Capitol Hill over the last year (watch some of my remarks here at minute 9:35), hoping that our elected officials might get the message.
John Backus
is a founder and managing partner with New Atlantic Ventures. He blogs here and tweets here. Opinions expressed by Backus are entirely his own.
Related posts:

John Backus said on August 15, 2011
Hi LAme VC. Let me take a crack at your questions.
1. My criteria on success/failure are objective. How are you doing compared to the budget and plan that YOU prepared and presented to your Board? How are you doing relative to your competitors? Are you winning or losing? Why would I want to get rid of a high performing entrepreneur? I want to get rid of a poorly performing CEO. A stat for you: We have funded 19 companies since January 2008. 16 founders are still the CEO. 2 founders who are no longer CEOs are still with the company in key roles. One CEO was fired.
2. Lame VCs with crappy returns never raise another fund. They die a slow death instead of a fast death. It would be nice if a few of them went out of business quicker.
3. We don’t have a duty to provide our results to our entrepreneurs as we do to our LPs. When you buy Apple stock do you send them your personal financial statement each quarter? of course not. You are investing in the, They are not investing in you. But if you ask, I would be happy to tell you. A VCs results should not be a State Secret. Since 2000 we have had two core funds at New Atlantic Ventures. One has returned 13% net to LPs and the other has returned 15% net. Top Decile performance according to Cambridge Associates data. Oh, and most of the entrepreneurs we backed, who had successful exits, are now investors in our funds. So they see our results quarterly.
Hope this helps. john
Jon Kessler said on August 16, 2011
“[T]he hope is that someone new at the top can change direction (often with little success).” If all you’ve got is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Denise Brosseau said on August 16, 2011
As one of the co-founders and now National Advisory Council members of Springboard, I appreciate the shout-out from John (above). Springboard does have a laser focus on helping women entrepreneurs and we welcome women-founded and -led companies to visit our website at http://www.springboardenterprises.org to learn more about our programs. Building a high-growth company takes a lot of great advisers, introductions to key industry players and opportunities to perfect your pitch and find funding, employees and partners. Springboard offers all of this and more, including an amazing community of serial entrepreneurs and successful investors ready to help others scale their companies successfully. Thanks again, John!
Amy Millman said on August 16, 2011
Thanks John
It confounds me that while, the job creators – the innovators with their investors – continue to push rocks up hills, our elected officials scratch their head about how to provide jobs. It’s about time they recognize that it takes an ecosystem, which includes the VCs and organization’s like Springboard, to solve the jobs problem. Thanks John for your actions and your advocacy.
Daniel Isenberg said on August 19, 2011
John, I have just become aware of your blog – you are a voice of reason and experience. It is important to use critical thinking and data when forming conclusions. Thanks for doing both. Dan
JXG said on September 8, 2011
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
It’s hard to take you seriously when you:
- use a title that includes “Worst . . . EVER!!”
- repeatedly resort to ALL CAPS!!!
- retell a (completely believable) anecdote illustrating sexism, and suggest that Professor Wadhwa “just made it up”.
- attack all academics everywhere
- ironically launch a personal attack on a respected businessperson and professor as someone looking to “mix research with anecdotes in order to make headlines”
- confuse your own behavior with that of the VC community as a whole, by repeatedly protesting that you could never have a sexist thought (which seems like a reach)
- While you only look for the “best and the brightest” with no regard for “gender or ethnicity”, you clearly believe seem to see it clearly enough to lump the two together. Myth #4 was “Women can’t cut it in the tech world,”; you chose to rebut his points by writing about minorities and foreign-born entrepreneurs. They are not the same thing. White male VC’s rarely ask an Indian-born male entreprenuer about plans for a family or attempt to sleep with them.
Going one step further, you cite 2 companies with women-only teams as an example of your gender-blindness. One is focused on high-end designer clothing, while the other provides, in a sense, designer clothes for pre-teen girls. This doesn’t exactly counter Wadwa’s notion that women should be better represented in high-level technology positions and the technology industry as a whole. Neither is it an explanation for why you wrote: “…THE MOST OFFENSIVE tripe I have ever read about VCs, and the author should be ashamed of himself for claiming this”