Tag: Government

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Entrepreneurship for All: Washington D.C.

Washington D.C.

Washington, D.C. is known for its politicians and bureaucrats, but it’s also where the top-20 U.S. government contractors are based. In recent decades, high-tech, high-growth entrepreneurship has been on the rise in the U.S. capital. Startup ventures, coupled with a diverse economy, largely fueled by the federal government, have led D.C. to emerge as a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem.

History of Entrepreneurship

The diversified needs of the federal government have led to a varied ecosystem. Feldman 2001 concludes that two unique conditions impacted the development of D.C.’s entrepreneurial culture: underemployed skilled labor caused by federal job cuts and the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights from publicly funded research.

Changes in federal employment policy through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 led the federal government to outsource goods and services in an effort to reduce civil service jobs.

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 created the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) as a mechanism whereby nonfederal entities can collaborate with federal laboratories on research and development projects. CRADAs aim to promote technological competitiveness and technology transfer to marketable products.

Biotech found a partner in the federal government through CRADAs. Proximity to federal labs has created an important biotechnology cluster attracting Merck and Pfizer among others, as well as startups MedImmune and Human Genome Sciences, later acquired by GlaxoSmithKline.

Other notable startups that emerged under the public-private sector collaboration include Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc. (SGT), who provides scientific and IT service solutions to a wide array of federal government agencies nationwide including NASA and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Government outsourcing opportunities benefitted the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry. The earliest ITC entrepreneurs were government contractors, who began working on ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet.

When the federal government removed the commercial restriction on the use of internet in 1989, former contractors became tech startups with ample opportunities to grow their ventures.

Resources in D.C.

AOL is a prominent ICT company launched in the D.C. metropolitan area during the 1990s dot-com boom. AOL is also credited for shaping the region’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Prior to its relocation to Manhattan, AOL funded Fishbowl Labs, a business incubator located at its Dulles campus. Fishbowl Labs provides resources to startups at no cost and a mentorship program through its employee network.

The company also invested in firms such as the D.C.-based tech hub incubator 1776. The incubator is modeled after 1871 in Chicago and the General Assembly incubator in New York. Notable companies currently working with 1776 include Babyscripts, Cowlar and MUrgency. 1776 organizes networking events for the government innovator community to promote the interconnectivity of startups and D.C.’s main consumer, the federal government.

Washington D.C. boasts four top universities in the immediate area with entrepreneurship programs: The Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Innovation Initiative at American University, Startup Hoyas at Georgetown University, Mason Innovation Lab at George Mason University and The Office of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at George Washington University.

Current D.C. Startups

Washington D.C.’s economy is stable and diverse. As of February 2017, the area had an unemployment rate of 2.5% and the gross product of the area was $471 billion in 2014, making it the sixth-largest U.S. metropolitan economy.

D.C.’s ecosystem has historically been linked to government agencies, but more recently, the startup community has had greater diversity. Notable startups out of D.C. include LivingSocial, iStrategyLabs and CoFoundersLab. Advertising company iStrategyLabs has created devices and advertising campaigns for 21 Fortune 500 companies. CoFoundersLab connects entrepreneurs via an online network.

The success of LivingSocial has invigorated the D.C. ecosystem with a new generation of startups. Borrowing Magnolia, a wedding dress rental business, Galley, a freshly prepared food delivery service, and online custom framing business, Framebridge, are among the ventures founded by LivingSocial alumni.

Venture Capital in Washington, D.C.

The D.C. startup scene is home to a number of influential venture capital firms that help invigorate the ecosystem. Venture Capital investment in D.C. has reached around $350 million in investment for years 2014 and 2016, with investment lower than $200 million in 2015.

According to a report from the Martin Prosperity Institute detailing worldwide VC investment in high-tech startups, D.C. is ranked eighth in the world with a total cumulative venture capital investment of $835 million until year 2012 (the most recent year these detailed data are available).

Data indicating the number of first-round deals in D.C. illustrate a stable ecosystem with an average of 36 first-round deals per year in the last five years.

One of the largest venture capital firms in the world, New Enterprise Associates (NEA), calls both D.C. and Silicon Valley home. In 2015, NEA’s fourteenth investment fund closed with $3.1 billion in investor capital, making it the largest venture capital fund ever raised. NEA invests in technology and health care companies around the world, but continues to support companies in D.C. such as online movie player SnagFilms and software producer Cvent. 

A diverse portfolio of venture capital firms are settled in the ecosystem to guarantee funding sustainability. Fortify Ventures, an early stage technology investment fund, nurtures investors and entrepreneurs. Fortify has received $100,000 in funding from the D.C. mayor’s office. D.C. startup, Social Tables, recently raised $13 million in Series B funding from Fortify Ventures and other investors.

Other notable venture capital firms in the D.C. area include Groundwork VC, a fund for minority founders, New Atlantic Ventures, a firm that invests in early stage startups and NextGen Venture Partners, which transitioned from an angel network into a venture capital firm this year.

D.C. venture capital investment is strong, but compared to areas such as San Francisco, which posted over six billion dollars in venture capital investment, San Jose (approximately $4 billion) and Boston (approximately $3 billion), VC investment in D.C. still has room to grow.

Startup-Friendly Government Policy

Local government policy incentivizes companies to move to or remain in D.C. The District waives corporate income taxes for the first five years and provides new-hire wage reimbursements for startups. However, D.C.’s regulatory environment still implies high costs for obtaining business licenses and permits.

Washington’s venture capital firms, angel networks and private investors cannot compete with the extensive network and resources in established ecosystems like Silicon Valley or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. According to Dow Jones VentureSource, about 50% of all venture capital invested in the United States goes to companies in Silicon Valley.

Despite Silicon Valley’s dominance, D.C.’s location, culture and resources position it as a strong ecosystem. D.C. will continue to take advantage of the resources and opportunities presented by the federal government.

Categories
Accelerators McNair Center

MassChallenge: Connecting Startups and Big Business

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

Corporations and startups are moving toward early stage interactions. MassChallenge, a highly successful nonprofit accelerator, has been connecting corporations and startups since its 2010  launch in Boston. MC has several US and international locations, which accelerated 372 startups in 2016.

MC delivers positive results and has been listed among the Best Startup Accelerators by the Seed Accelerator Rankings Project, led by Baker Institute Rice faculty scholar Yael Hochberg.  There are over 1,000 MC alumni, who have collectively raised more than $1.8B in outside funding, generated $700M in revenue and created over 60,000 jobs. According to a 2016 MIT study, MC startups are 2.5 times more likely than non-MC startups to hire at least 15 employees and three times more likely to raise $500,000 in funding.

With seven years of history, notable MC alumni includes Ginkgo Bioworks, which designs custom microbes to produce chemicals, ingredients and industrial enzymes. As a startup, Gingko Bioworks raised $154M in funding and signed a deal for 700 million base pairs of designed DNA — the largest such agreement ever made — with Twist Bioscience. Other remarkable graduates of the program include Ksplice, Turo, Sproxil and LiquiGlide.

An Attractive Alternative for Startups

MC is similar to other startup institutions such as Techstars and Y-Combinator. However, the nonprofit differentiates itself by not taking equity. Entrants to the accelerator must be early stage startups, defined as companies with no more than $500K of investment and $1M in annual revenue. As part of the four-month program, selected startups receive mentoring, co-working space, access to a network of corporate partners, tailored workshops and the chance to win a portion of $2M in zero-equity funding. Additional prizes are provided by partners such as The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) and Microsoft’s New England Research and Development Center.

For entrepreneurs in regions with mature ecosystems like Silicon Valley and Boston, MC is one option among an array of accelerators and informal networks. This  density of resources is called  agglomeration, a geographic concentration of interconnected entities increases interactions and the productivity. The MIT study suggests MC acts as a complement to the prior advantages of startups in established ecosystems by providing key resources and access to social capital  and also found evidence that startups founded in regions with higher access to early stage investors had on average higher quality ideas, but that their chances of success were not higher conditional on the quality of their idea.

For startups in nascent ecosystems the resources provided by MC can become the only option to pitch their ideas to investors and advance their company at no cost other than the time invested on the program. Of equal value is the endorsement received as a MC graduate inferring the quality of the startup venture.

A Model Built on Strategic Partnerships

As a nonprofit, MC depends on the support of a network of public, private and philanthropic partners, with the vast majority of their funding coming from corporations. Governments and philanthropic foundations fund MC with the goal to foster regional economic growth. Founders John Harthorne and Akhil Nigam, former consultants at Bain & Company, garnered early support from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, successful entrepreneurs and large corporations such as Blackstone, Microsoft and the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation.

MC could have faced financial challenges by providing accelerator programs at no cost and with no equity commitment. However, MC was able to become a bridge between large companies’ need for innovation and startups’ need for capital. Large companies have the scale of resources, customer information and market experience, but may lag in innovation. Startups, on the other hand, lack the resources but innovate with sometimes disruptive and successful ventures, frequently taking incumbents by surprise (Airbnb, Uber).

MC serves as a channel between startups and established companies to meet the need for fast-paced innovation. Companies like Bühler and PTC partner with MC to source high-potential startups for the development of advanced technology. Companies can also source tailored programs or tracks for specific needs.

A study done jointly by MC and innovation firm Imaginatik looked at how startups and corporations interact in new collaborative ways. The research team surveyed 112 corporations and 233 startups from various industries. 82 percent of the corporations considered startup interactions important, and 23% stated that these interactions are “mission critical.” Startups have a high interest in working with corporations with 99% stating it is important for them to interact with potential corporate customers, marketing channels and strategic partners.

Expansion

MassChallenge was located at One Marina Park Drive until 2014.

MC communicates its impact and vision to donors by demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of alliances between startups and corporations. A solid accelerator program, global vision, robust network and a sustainable funding strategy have set up MC for success. As stated in the MC Impact Report 2016, the accelerator is committed to running 12 locations annually by 2020, including at least one on each populated continent.

Before establishing an MC accelerator, the metropolitan area is evaluated for the quality of its research universities, urban setting, level of entrepreneurship opportunity and investment capability. As government and private stakeholders partner, a sense of shared ownership becomes crucial to consolidating efforts. This engagement guarantees that the resulting ecosystems are seen as a shared legacy.

The next MC sites are yet to be announced. Currently in five locations with global impact, MC’s 2020 vision is on a path to become a tangible reality.

The author and editor would like to thank Tay Jacobe for assistance with researching and drafting this post.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Mile-High Entrepreneurship

Boulder has long been considered Colorado’s startup hub, but Denver is emerging as a strong contender. Mentoring and venture capital support have helped Denver’s ecosystem expand rapidly so that it is well on its way to becoming self-sustaining.

Denver has garnered a reputation as one of the best places for high-tech, high-growth ventures.The total number of tech startups located in downtown Denver has increased by 13% in the last two years; 4% above the national average in new startup growth. Denver has collected accolades that ranging from the Best Place for Business and Careers by Forbes to the third Best Place in the Country to Launch a Startup according to Washington D.C.-based accelerator, 1776.

History

Colorado has a history of high-growth entrepreneurship ranging from telecommunications (Dish Cable) to restaurant chains (Chipotle and Quiznos). The state’s venture capital-backed startup activity began in the 1980’s when national venture funds such as Access Ventures, Vista Ventures, Sequel Ventures and Heritage Group invested in local Denver startups. By 2000, Denver was supporting a startup ecosystem, but successful companies left the state or were sold to out-of-state purchasers. VC funding collapsed after the tech bubble burst.

In 2006 Jared Polis, Brad Feld, David Cohen and David Brown established Boulder-based Techstars, which brought the nascent startup ecosystems of Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder and Colorado Springs together. Accepting only 1% of applicants, Techstars is extremely competitive. Graduates of this three-month program average approximately $1.8 million in outside financing. In exchange for 7-10% equity, Techstars provides $18,000 in seed funding, a $100,000 convertible debt and mentorship opportunities. Denver alumni include UsingMiles, FullContact, Revolar and MeetMindful.

Techstars is not the only catalyst for the entrepreneurial community in the region. Former Denver mayor and current Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, himself an entrepreneur before entering politics, implemented policies that made supporting startups a central focus for economic recovery and growth.

Colorado’s Entrepreneur Friendly Policies

Colorado policymakers has made entrepreneurship a central focus. The state legislature has lowered tax rates and lifted regulatory burdens for the business community. Colorado taxes business at a flat rate of 4.63%, one of the lowest business income tax levels in the country.

Governor Hickenlooper has championed programs such as the Colorado Innovation Network (COIN), which works to connect the 29 Colorado research facilities with entrepreneurs. In 2014, the Colorado Impact Fund was launched, a public-private fund that estimates making 10-15 investments through 2020.

Home-Grown Resources

Since 2010, downtown Denver has added an average of almost 16,000 residents per year, resulting in a population increase of over 13% in the past five years. This remarkable growth has been accompanied with an increase in the number of homegrown startups. As a result, there is a significant number of resources available for Denver entrepreneurs.

Established in 2012, Denver Startup Week draws entrepreneurs from across the country. In 2016, Denver Startup Week attracted 12,500 people from across the country with 300 events, making it the biggest free entrepreneurial event in North America. Entrepreneurs participate in an elevator pitch competition and interact with VC fund representatives.

The Commons on Champa is a high-tech co-working space that brands itself as “Denver’s public campus for entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurs have access to networking events, panels, workshop and onsite mentors.

The Rockies Venture Club (RVC) helps to bridge the gap between Denver entrepreneurs and investors. RVC is a Denver angel group that provides educational programs. In addition, RVC hosts events where entrepreneurs and investors can meet and make deals.

The University of Denver’s entrepreneurship initiative, Project X-ITE, brings a number of resources to students. Ranked as one of the top 30 entrepreneurial universities in the United States by Forbes, Project X-ITE is a cross-disciplinary initiative focused on the intersection of innovation, technology and entrepreneurship.

The second quarter of 2018 will mark the opening of Catalyst HTI, which will serve a dual role as incubator and accelerator. Catalyst HTI will bring together entrepreneurs in technology and health care to create state-of-the art incubator and accelerator in downtown Denver. Companies such as CirrusMD and Revolar have already committed to joining the community.

Entrepreneurship for Women

In 2013, Denver was named one of the best places for women to start a business as by Nerdwallet. There are several female-focused resources in the city. Denver’s female entrepreneurs have found support from startup accelerator program MergeLane, which specifically invests in female-led companies. Recently, the Commons on Champa also launched Women on the Rise, an initiative aimed to support and celebrate the success of female entrepreneurs.

Other notable resources include The Coterie, Denver’s first women co-working community, and Women Who Startup, which hosts monthly meetings. SheSays, an international trade organization based in the UK, launched in SheSaysDenver in 2014 and counts over 1,000 women as members. SheSaysDenver provides free mentoring and events to women working in technology and business.

Venture Capital

Overall, Denver VC investment is reflective of nationwide trends, with investment decreasing after the Great Recession, and recovering around 2010. Denver firms such as the Foundry Group, Grotech Ventures and Access Ventures are anchoring investment in the ecosystem.
Local VC received a significant increase in 2015 after Welltok raised a massive $45 million round of investment. VC investment has stabilized around $500 million in investments each year since 2014. However, the 2016 Colorado Startup Report notes that the total funding raised in 2016 was distributed across more than 129 different technology companies, indicating a greater distribution of capital. The Downtown Denver Startup Report indicates that in 2015 alone, more than 165 tech startups were founded in Denver in 2015.

Data indicating the number of first round deals in Denver illustrate a stable ecosystem with an average of around 50 first-round deals per year.

Looking to the Future

Denver entrepreneurs have noted that there is a significantly lower amount of early stage fundraising in the ecosystem. However, this is a reflection of a nationwide trend of cautious investing in early-stage investment.

Denver does have early stage VC investors, but in many cases, does rely on angel investors to supply funding. The University of Colorado’s Silicon Flatiron recommends the continued support of Colorado and Denver super-angel funds, also known as Micro-VCs, which are about $2-$10 million in size and specialize in early stage investing.

In the coming years, it is likely that Denver’s ecosystem will reach critical mass and consolidate as an attractive option for local and out-of-state entrepreneurs. With a strong and growing infrastructure for entrepreneurship, Denver’s startup growth and success is likely to continue.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Development of Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

On May 4, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner stated his support for building a data science center. The next day, he endorsed plans for an Innovation District. How would these types of development promote entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth in Houston?

The Basics

What are Research Parks, like the proposed data science center, and Innovation Districts?

Research Parks promote research, technological development and commercialization by creating a high density of universities and research institutions within a small area. By placing many innovative researchers and developers in close proximity, Research Parks encourage growth of new companies and collaboration across fields, driving technology-based economic development.

The Brookings Institution defines Innovation Districts as dense areas that bring together research institutions, high-growth firms and startups through thoughtfully designed and resource-rich commercial and residential spaces.

Research Parks and Innovation Districts slightly differ in their implementation, but both spaces aim to accomplish similar goals; they want to create physical hubs for innovation and entrepreneurial development. Typically, developers build Research Parks on new land, cultivating previously undeveloped space. Innovation Districts, however, use old land. This land was previously developed but is no longer in use.

Attribution: ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Silicon Valley is a well-known Innovation District.

Both Research Parks and Innovation Districts are generative and can be helpful in stimulating local economies. Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto and Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham are some of the most well-known examples in the United States. Research Triangle Park is the largest in the country and one of the largest in the world. Stanford Research Park played a key role in the creation of Silicon Valley.

Successful Innovation Districts include Kendall Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts, South Lake Union in Seattle and Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati.

What Makes These Areas Special?

Research Parks and Innovation Districts are highly productive areas. Innovation leads to new ideas and job creation. According to the Association of University Research Parks, each job in a Research Park generates approximately 2.57 additional jobs. Thus, the more than 300,000 Research Park employees in the United States lead to 700,000 additional jobs.

Innovation Districts can also produce strong results. By placing many innovators in close proximity to one another, they facilitate collaborative interactions. As Innovation Districts vary greatly in size and productivity, an accurate estimate for job creation is unavailable.

Key Factors: The Capital Stack

Layered financial tools known as a “capital stack” are necessary to promote the development Research Parks and Innovation Districts. For a capital stack that attracts investors, an area must have access to multiple types of equity, incentives and debt to provide flexibility to developers and innovators.

Developers may be able to secure planning grants through the U.S. Economic Development Administration to create the Research Park or Innovation District. These are “designed to leverage existing regional assets and support the implementation of economic development strategies that advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.” Even though Innovation Districts are built on previously developed land, the government still issues planning grants because they “advance new ideas and creative approaches to advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.”

Tax credit bonds are also common debt instruments. Instead of taking on loans, municipal governments sell bonds, which provide tax credits in lieu of interest payments. Some examples are Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Economic Bonds and Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.

Equity is also an important necessity. Investment can be incentivized from a variety of sources, like New Market Tax Credits. These give tax credits to investors who make equity investments in Community Development Entities in developing and low-income communities. Housing and Urban Development community development grants and state or federal tax relief programs can also incentivize investment.

Key Factors: Social Factors

The final piece of the puzzle to create a Research Park or Innovation District is social organization. In order to facilitate collaboration and innovation, physical, intellectual and social resources need to be readily accessible.

Networking assets—“the relationships between actors—such as individuals, firms and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen and accelerate the advancement of ideas”—are essential for the development of Innovation Districts. The lines of communication between developers, researchers and sources of funding must be open and easily accessible. This synergy is enhanced in Innovation Districts through the close proximity of ecosystem participants and access to shared meeting and collaboration spaces.

The Potential for Research Parks and Innovation Districts in Houston

Many cities have developed Innovation Districts in effort to grow local entrepreneurship and innovation. Turner’s announcement of the planned Innovation District earlier this month mentioned the 40,000 jobs created by Chicago’s efforts to spur innovation. Turner noted, “It is now time for us to be more competitive, to further diversify and expand our economy. What Chicago can do, Houston can do better.”

In 2015, the University of Texas bought 332 acres of land in southwest Houston with the hopes of developing it into a small Research Park. However, in March 2017, UT Chancellor William McRaven canceled the site’s plans for development. The Houston Chronicle cites timing and lack of transparency as the main causes for the cancellation.

However, there may still be potential for a Research Park in Houston. Mayor Turner also expressed support for the proposed data science center, urging the University of Houston to take the lead. The Chairman of the University of Houston Board of Regents, Tilman Fertitta, has spoken positively about this idea, mentioning excitement about the prospect of collaborating with Rice University, Texas Southern University, Texas A&M University and the University of Texas through the development of a data hub.

Bill Gropp, the acting director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, recently stated that there is far more demand for Research Parks than there is supply. It is clear that the development of a Research Park or Innovation District would stimulate the economy and create jobs. If Houston wants to take advantage of these opportunities, the time to act is now.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Gateway to Entrepreneurship: St. Louis

You probably know St. Louis as the Gateway to the West, but the city is emerging as a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem. For decades, St. Louis followed the economic development model of attracting and keeping large out-of-town companies with generous tax breaks and subsidies. In the 1990’s, political and business leaders became frustrated with the slow economic growth under these policies and began implementing entrepreneur-friendly policies.

While the city has not abandoned tax breaks and other subsidies to attract big companies, it has adopted an entrepreneurship model driven by state and private efforts. This model appears to be working. Data from the Census Bureau show 9.7 percent of businesses in St. Louis are startups less than three years old. St. Louis can now boast the second best rate of startup growth in the country.

Venture Capital

St.LouisFirstRounds
Author’s calculations based on data from SDC Platinum VentureXpert

It is widely believed that an ecosystem should be producing 30 to 35 deals per year to beconsidered stable. St. Louis saw three consecutive years of 30 or more first-round deals from 2013 to 2015. While 2016 reflects a poor year for St. Louis VC investment and first rounds, this decline reflects a nationwide trend.

StLouisVC
Author’s calculations based on data from SDC Platinum VentureXpert

 

 

St. Louis boasts sizable venture capital investment. Like many ecosystems, St. Louis suffered from the dot-com bust in the early 2000’s, but a strong pattern of VC investment seems to be emerging. How has St. Louis achieved venture capital growth?

History

The first entrepreneurship-focused programs established in St. Louis were the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program.

The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center provides support for plant scientists who work directly with the agriculture technology startups. The Danforth Plant Science Center cofounded the Ag Innovation Showcase, the premier agricultural technology and innovation showcase in the nation.

The Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program began in 2001 at Washington University, but expanded in 2003 to the Skandalaris Center for Interdisciplinary Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The Skandalaris Center provides entrepreneurial training, networking opportunities and a mentoring program.

When the Great Recession hit in 2008, St. Louis suffered. The “corporate jewel” Anheuser-Busch laid off hundreds at their St. Louis headquarters. St. Louis’ per capita personal income shrunk by 5 percent. The metro unemployment rate reached over 10 percent. Despite Danforth Plant Science Center and Skandalaris Entrepreneurship Program, there still was not much positive entrepreneurial output. Researchers and politicians blamed the national economy and the greater time required to establish agriculture-focused startups.

The St. Louis entrepreneurial ecosystem remained largely unsupported until 2012 when the nonprofit Information Technology Entrepreneurs Network (ITEN) began to catalyze the ecosystem. Jim Brasunas, a former telecommunications manager turned entrepreneur, founded ITEN by utilizing the public-private investment fund, Missouri Technology Corporation (MTC).

While ITEN was founded in 2008, many of the programs were not active until two or three years after its founding. Many entrepreneurs credit the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem to Brasunas and ITEN.

Resources

St. Louis has the requisite components of a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem; highly ranked universities, research-focused centers, accelerators, incubators and venture capital funds. However, the strong private-public partnerships and women-focused accelerators make SSt_Louis_nightt. Louis’ ecosystem unique.

In 2012, MTC put a significant amount of seed money into a new economic development model, Arch Grants. Arch Grants runs a global competition to identify potential entrepreneurs from almost any industry sector. Arch Grants then provides entrepreneurs with $50,000 equity-free grants and pro bono support services if they agree to build their businesses in St. Louis. Over 100 startups have been awarded Arch Grants including RoverTown, which was named the fastest growing tech startup in St. Louis.

Accelerators

Accelerators are key components of any healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem, and St. Louis has a plethora of accelerators. Capital Innovators is a 12 week accelerator program that provides $50,000 in seed funding to startups. The accelerator focuses on IT and consumer product startups, such as LockerDome, Bonfyre and Fluent.

Another notable accelerator is BioSTL. The investment arm of BioSTL, BioGenerator, has worked to grow bioscience startups in the region since 2001. MediBeacon, BacterioScan and Galera Therapeutics are among the startups that have gone through BioGenerator.

SixThirty is St. Louis’ largest and most famous accelerator with corporate partners like State Farm and the St. Louis Regional Chamber. The accelerator provides up to $100,000 in funding and sponsors two cohorts per year. SixThirty’s expertise is venture capital and revenue acceleration for startups that are at the late-seed stage.

St. Louis’ agricultural-technology industry is back, and Yield Lab, opened in 2014, focuses on accelerating this industry. Its nine month AgTech program provides early-stage companies with $100,000 in funding and looks to add value to companies that from a nonfinancial standpoint. The Yield Lab opened a second accelerator in St. Louis’ sister city, Galway, Ireland in January of 2017. Graduates of the Yield Lab include S4, Arvengenix and Holganix.

In 2012, St. Louis ranked a disappointing 25th in a national survey of women’s entrepreneurship. Prosper Women Entrepreneurs (PWE) was born when community leaders realized that the region could significantly improve its economy and entrepreneurial ecosystem if women reached their entrepreneurial potential.

Women now own a higher share of startups in Missouri than in any other state. PWE offers support to a woman-owned company focusing on technology, health care IT and consumer startups. Graduates of PWE include Appticles, Bandura System and SixPlus.

Co-Working Spaces

In addition to accelerators, St. Louis has a significant number of co-working spaces such as Exit 11 Workspace and Hive44.

Founded in 1999, CIC St. Louis is the most famous of the St. Louis co-working space. CIC focuses on biotechnology and bioscience startups. $2.1 billion in VC has been raised by companies originally based at CIC and more than 800 companies call CIC home.

Venture Capitalists

St. Louis has a significant number of venture capitalist firms. While venture capitalist firms invest around the country and world, it is important to have firms in ecosystems as they often provide VC stability. Advantage Capital Partners, BioGenerator and RiverVest Ventures appear to serve as long term midsize anchor funds for St. Louis. Cultivation Capital raised its first fund in 2012. Lewis and Clark Ventures emerged in 2014 and are a midsize fund.

Looking to the Future

St. Louis is emerging as a stable and strong startup ecosystem in the Midwest. Efforts to increase private and public support for resources, as well as funding and tax credits for research, will facilitate St. Louis’ continued growth.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Medical Device Startups and the FDA

Does the FDA approval process impede innovation? Medical devices must be reviewed for safety and effectiveness by the Food and Drug Administration before being marketed in United States, which encompasses 43 percent of the global market for medical devices. Startups in the medical device industry are often dissatisfied with this approval process, favoring the FDA’s European Union peer, CE Marking. Some founders even believe the time consuming and expensive FDA process “holds back the entire industry.”

Classification of Medical Devices

The FDA classifies medical devices based on their associated risks. Class I devices, like enema kits and elastic bandages, have minimal potential for harm and are typically exempt from the regulatory process. Devices that present medium risk, like contact lenses, are classified as Class II and carefully reviewed. Class III devices, such as pacemakers and replacement heart valves, are the highest risk devices, subject to the most regulatory controls.

Blood Pressure Cuff -- Class II

The FDA categorizes devices based on their function, not their underlying technologies. These categorizations may cause unnecessary delays by imposing regulatory requirements on technologies that have already been tested. Ariel Dora Stern of Harvard Business School found that for devices based on the same technologies, those placed in already existing product categories took less time to approve than those placed in new categories.

Premarket Processes

There are two FDA processes required of medical devices in different classifications:  Premarket Notification 510(k) and Premarket Approval (PMA).

Most Class I and Class II devices can be marketed after receiving 510(k) clearance. It demonstrates that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a device already on the market. Those devices that can be paired with substantial equivalents or “predicate devices” do not require a PMA. The 510(k) clearance tends to take around 200 days and costs much less than PMA.

PMA is required for new Class III high-risk devices. Companies need to submit evidence that provides reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective. The PMA can take more than 450 days and include the ongoing costs of clinical trials among other expenses.

The clinical study stage often takes as long as the initial concept development stage. Josh Makower, Aabed Meer and Lyn Denend at  Stanford University surveyed over 200 medical device companies and found that it took the companies an average of 31 months from first communication with the FDA to receive 510(k) clearance and 54 months for PMA. 81 percent of survey respondents believed that the FDA has a difficult time with novel technologies. Stern also found that the first device in any given category took 34 percent longer to receive approval than the next device in that category, leading to an average delay of 7.2 months.

Hefty Expenditures

Makower et al. found the average total cost to bring a low- to moderate-risk 510(k) product from concept to clearance was $31 million, with $24 million spent on FDA-related activities. For a higher-risk PMA product, the cost became $94 million, with $75 million spent on FDA requirements. Approximately 50 percent of medical device exits (acquisitions or IPOs) are under $100 million; 75 percent are under $150 million. As the cost of getting to market approaches the average exit value, the funding equation looks less attractive to venture capitalists.

Obstacles to True Innovation

It is likely that companies sometimes compromise and pursue the less risky yet also less innovative 510(k) route. They make relatively simple extensions to low-risk product lines already in existence. The FDA typically evaluates more than 4,000 510(k) notifications and about 40 original PMA applications each year. This means that only one percent of devices are innovative, new medical technologies that require clinical data to get FDA approval.

Challenges Facing Small Companies

Startups face particular challenges in navigating the FDA regulatory process. More than 80 percent of the 6,500 medical device companies in the U.S. have fewer than 50 employees. According to the industry-wide survey, 72 percent of small companies submit new products. Only 35 percent of large companies do this. The total average review time for small companies is 330 days, as opposed to 177 days for large companies. However, Stern found that privately-held firms with revenues under $500 million made up only 14 percent of FDA submissions for follow-on devices and 7 percent for novel devices.

CE Mark or FDA?

The EU represents 31 percent of the global medical device market, which has a projected value reaching $544 billion by 2020. Access to both the American and European markets gives startups 74 percent of the global market, worth $400 billion. Attempting both FDA approval and CE Mark approval simultaneously is not feasible for most companies

In 2012, a Boston Consulting Group study found that most PMA medical devices were available in Europe 3 years earlier than in the U.S. Makower et al. found it took medical technology firms an average of seven months to get CE Mark clearance and 11 months to get PMA for the EU. Approximately two-thirds of small medical device companies obtained clearance in Europe first. The number one reason is the unpredictability of 510(k) requirements, according to a comprehensive industry-wide survey conducted by John H. Linehan and Jan B. Pietzsch at Northwestern University.

The difficulty of obtaining FDA approval also makes it harder for startups to raise VC funding. In 2012, BCG interviewed venture capitalists on medical device investments and found that some investors would not invest in a medical device startup unless the company received a CE Mark and promised consequent revenues in Europe.

Conclusion

The value and importance of FDA approval are undeniable. However, policymakers should examine whether the lengthy and expensive FDA approval process is necessary. The FDA might consider reducing the length of the process for all applicants. It might also help if the FDA accommodates startups’ specific needs. This can be done by granting subsidies to small businesses, offering expedited paths to truly novel and needed technologies and providing equipment or space for conducting clinical trials to innovative startups.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

The Carried Interest Debate

In the 2016 election, carried interest and its taxation was a hot topic. Often explained as a “loophole” that allows the rich to exploit tax codes, carried interest is not a political issue that clearly fits within party lines. Lobbying by the financial sector occurs on both sides of the political aisle, and there are opponents and supporters within both parties. What are the dynamics of this debate, and what are the arguments for whether carried interest should be taxed differently?

Private Investment Funds

In the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton rallied against “hedge-funds” for paying so little tax. However, these comments were misleading. Clinton and Trump were actually talking about a tax rule that applies to a range of private investment funds.

A private investment fund invests capital with the goal of making returns for its investors. But within this description there is a lot of variety in the types of funds. Funds vary in their sources of capital, the targets of their investments and the roles they play in the economy.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fund_Structure.pngPrivate investment funds are typically set up as limited partnerships, rather than limited liability companies (LLCs). They organize themselves as general partners and limited partners. The general partners are the funds’ managers, which may be structured as a managing firm. Managing firms are often incorporated as an LLC. The limited partners are the funds’ investors. They are called limited partners because they are required to have limited involvement in the funds day-to-day activities. These investors are usually financial institutions, pension funds, insurance companies and wealthy individuals.

Rewarding General Partners

General partners invest in their own funds (typically contributing less than 5 percent of the capital) to make money. However, their compensation comes through management fees and carried interest. Usually around 2 percent of a fund’s raised capital goes to management fees.  Management fees are paid regardless of the fund’s performance and are there to cover operating costs and base salaries.

When a firm is set up it negotiates how excess returns – those paid after invested capital has been repaid – are shared. An 80/20 split between investors and managers is typical. Managers with strong track records can and do negotiate for more, sometime even offering to forgo management fees.  This 20 or so percent that goes to the managers is called “the carry” or, formally, the carried interest.

Types of Private Investment Funds

Common types of private investment funds include private equity funds, venture capital funds, hedge-funds and mutual funds.

Private equity funds generally invest in large companies with the intent to restructure and sell the firms for a gain. These investments usually mean acquiring controlling interests in public companies through stock purchases. The fund will then take the company private. Private companies can then be sold to another buyer or back to the public with a new initial public offering. However, private equity firms do also sometimes acquire private companies.

Venture capital funds invest in high-tech startup companies with high-growth potential. Once the fund purchases a stake in the company, it also provides coaching and other services to the company in order to increase its chances of success. Venture capital funds sell their positions at initial public offerings or when their portfolio companies get sold to incumbents or private equity firms.

Hedge funds focus on achieving high returns through risky investments. They differ from mutual funds in the diversity of their strategies and their underlying assets. Mutual funds typically only take long positions in stocks and bonds. Hedge funds can invest in anything. Their underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, derivatives, warrants, futures, options, currencies, land, real-estate and much else besides. Hedge funds will often simultaneously take both long and short leveraged positions.

Tax Treatment

The carried interest controversy stems from its tax treatment. Carried interest is subject to a maximum capital gains tax rate of 20 percent (the long-term capital gains rate). This is compared to the maximum ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent, which is also the maximum short-term capital gains rate.

Those in favor of the current system believe that a higher rate would reduce the incentive for general partners to take risks. They sometimes specifically claim that greater taxes on carried interest could discourage innovation and efficiency in markets.

Those opposed to a reduced tax rate for carried interest frequently argue that carried interest is performance-based compensation.  Comparing it to a bonus, they say that it should be subject to the ordinary income rate.

The controversy surrounding carried interest has faced increasing media scrutiny since the 2012 election. Former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney paid taxes of just $1.9 million on $13.69 million in income in 2011, an effective rate of 14.1 percent  Perhaps in response to the media and public uproar, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 raised what was then the long-term capital gains tax rate of 15 percent to 20 percent. President Obama signed this change into law on January 2, 2013.

The Economics

To economists the key question is one of efficiency: Would free markets achieve the efficient outcome without the additional incentive that carried interest provides? The answer probably depends on the type of private investment firm.

Venture capitalists face enormous information problems when trying to assess their potential investments. And many of their portfolio firms create value for outsiders who aren’t investors and who don’t use the firm’s products themselves. Each of these reasons leads to inefficient under-investment, which carried interest could help address.

Hedge-funds may make markets more complete by allowing investors to place capital into a wider range of underlying assets. Private equity firms may provide a “market for management” that disciplines publicly-traded firms. It is possible that without these types of investment vehicle there would be market failure, but it is unclear that they need additional incentives to address it.

Because mutual funds just aggregate and manage stock and bond portfolios – a job done by brokers and investors themselves – it is hard to see why they need subsidizing.

Looking to the Future

The House Republicans’ 2016 Tax Reform Proposal includes no explicit mention of carried interest. However, it does advocate for “reduced but progressive” capital gains taxes. If the administration chooses to adopt this plan, carried interest tax breaks could become even larger.

However, it is difficult to predict the fate of carried interest tax breaks, especially given President Trump’s past statements. During his campaign, Trump was highly critical of these tax breaks. He claimed that fund managers were “getting away with murder” by taking advantage of the rule. However, since taking office, Trump Administration has made no mention of its plans to address this tax code provision. The administration plans to reform U.S. tax law in the coming year, so carried interest is definitely a topic to look out for.

See the McNair Center’s wiki page on Carried Interest for further explanation of the dynamics of carried interest.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Global Policy Uncertainty and U.S. Stock Trends

The Financial Times has predicted that “the rise of Donald Trump may already be casting a shadow over the global economy.”

When it comes to the Trump Administration, the world is unsure what policies to expect. Trump’s positions on international trade and tendency toward nationalist policies are a concern for the rest of the world. However, the U.S. stock market is performing at record-breaking highs. Economic research has linked policy uncertainty to stock market slowdowns. If this is so, why is the American stock market responding so positively?

Policy Uncertainty

With President Trump’s unprecedented actions and unpredictable behavior, policy uncertainty seems like the only thing that is certain. With unbroken ties to his family businesses, casual use of Twitter, and frequent attacks on the media, President Trump is shaping up to be different than any president that America has seen before.

When it comes to policy, much of the Trump administration’s plans are unclear. Throughout his campaign, Trump took many different positions on major issues. For example, Trump claimed in multiple campaign speeches that the wealthy should pay higher taxes, saying “Right now they are paying very little tax and I think it’s outrageous.” However, in Trump’s August 2016 tax plan, the top 20 percent of earners would receive 67 percent of the overall individual tax cuts.

Whitehouse.gov also contains pages on high-priority goals for the Trump administration, such as the military, jobs and growth, and energy. However, it offers minimal details as to how the administration plans to accomplish these goals.

Uncertainty and Investment

Typically, we expect policy uncertainty to affect investment, reflected through stock markets and other economic measures. Moody’s Analytics explains that uncertainty theoretically raises the cost of capital, postpones consumer spending and creates an incentive for employers to slow hiring and investing.

Economists Lubos Pastor and Pietro Veronesi of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business developed an economic model that directly related policy uncertainty and stock prices. The model predicts that stock prices respond negatively to policy uncertainty; when uncertainty is large, the reaction is largely negative.

A study by Scott Baker of Northwestern University, Nick Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that policy uncertainty also negatively affects firm employment and investment. “Firms with greater exposure to government purchases experience greater stock price volatility when policy uncertainty is high and reduced investment rates and employment growth when policy uncertainty rises,” the authors explain. Citing household hesitations in spending, finance cost increases, and risk aversive behavior, and market rigidities/frictions as factors, the researchers claim that uncertainty can deeply impact decisions at a microeconomic level.

Nonetheless, scholars still do not completely understand the true effects of policy uncertainty on the economy. Moody’s Analytics found that “a sudden spike [in uncertainty] can have economic costs, but it can also be used as an excuse for weakness in the economy when there could be other clear causes;” this is especially true during presidential elections. The study asserted that policy uncertainty will likely remain high as the Trump Administration enacts new policies; however, the economic costs attributed directly to policy uncertainty will likely remain minimal.

Current Uncertainty and Economic Trends

Quantitatively, it is clear that global policy uncertainty is reaching unforeseen levels. In January 2017, the month of Trump’s inauguration, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index reached the highest levels observed since the index began in the late 1990s.

The World Bank cites policy uncertainty as a cause for economic slowdowns in 2016-2017. Emerging market economies and world trade performance are both weaker now than in previous years.

When we focus in on United States, however, the narrative is different. The U.S. stock market has been

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trump_address_to_joint_session_of_Congress_2.jpg
On March 1, the President Trump addressed a joint session of congress and the Dow closed at over 21,000 points for the first time.

performing relatively well since Trump’s election. Following an initial negative reaction on the morning of November 9, stock markets have reached new heights since November. On the first day of March, the Dow broke records by closing above 21,000 points for the first time, and in mid-March, the Nasdaq composite hit an all-time high.

Why has the U.S. Economy Responded this Way?

There are many potential reasons why the U.S. stock market has responded so positively in the face of high global policy uncertainty.

“Major international institutions such as the IMF, the OECD and World Bank have recently upgraded their forecasts of global economic growth largely due to expectations that tax cuts, rising infrastructure spending and a wave of deregulation will boost the US economy under the new president,” the Financial Times claims. All three of these proposals are good signs for the stock market. Trump’s intended timeline for these policies is unclear, but stock markets may be betting that they will be implemented eventually.

The stock market’s strong performance could also be linked to Trump’s approval ratings. A study by Ned Davis Research found that a low presidential approval rating corresponds with gains in the stock market. According to Gallup, Trump’s approval are ratings lower than any other president that they have tracked in 72 years. The NDR research only specified that there is a correlation between these two factors, but not causation. If there is any deeper causal connection between presidential approval ratings and stocks, then Trump’s low approval rating could explain recent trends.

Will it Last?

There is also a possibility that this boom is only temporary. Economist Larry Summers believes that this is the case. He cites future nationalist policies and increasing insider sales, among other factors, as the potential downfall of U.S. stocks. Along with this, Foreign Policy argues that the Trump Administration is taking the wrong approach to boosting the economy; most of the benefits will be enjoyed by the wealthy. Research shows that fiscal spending that focuses on helping low-income individuals/families has a more positive long-run economic impact. However, the Trump Administration is not placing much emphasis on these types of programs. Further, Trump has even suggested cutting large portions of programs meant to help low-income Americans.

Conclusion

It is too early to predict what the next four years will mean for the economy. Although news outlets and social media may make it feel as though unprecedented amounts of uncertainty to the United States, the economy does not seem to be responding to this uncertainty negatively, at least for now. In the short term, we can view this as a positive trend; nonetheless, we must be wary of any potential downturns in the future.
The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Russell Green at Rice University’s Baker Institute for providing the idea and framework for this post.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Congress Turns Its Attention to Entrepreneurship and Innovation—But Does It Take Effective Action?

U.S. Capitol west side by Martin Falbisoner

AnnesGraphLegislation passed during the first three months of  the 115th Congress pays disproportionate attention to entrepreneurship and innovation. McNair Center research shows that in a typical congressional session, less than 2 percent of legislation introduced is relevant to E&I issues. As of March 23, three of the ten bills that have become law during the 115th Congress directly address entrepreneurship and innovation.

A focus on entrepreneurship and innovation issues does not alone make for effective policy. Of the three E&I bills that have become law, only one, the Tested Ability to Leverage Exceptional National Talent (TALENT) Act supports a proven program, the Presidential Innovation Fellows. The other two laws, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act and the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Act, are devoid of meaningful changes to public policy.

TALENT Act: Codifying a Proven Program

The TALENT Act is the most likely of the three bills to have real world impact. This bill, sponsored by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23), codifies the Presidential Innovation Fellows program begun as an executive order under President Obama. This bill was part of McCarthy’s Innovation Initiative, a suite of legislation introduced in the 114th Congress. In an interview with Fortune, McCarthy described his goal for the initiative as, making government “effective, efficient and accountable.”

The McNair Center’s Julia Wang explains that Innovation Fellows are embedded in government agencies, working to effect internal change. Projects include making information about clinical trials for cancer drugs available to patients in a searchable website as part of the Cancer Moonshot, developing an interagency data portal for child welfare and creating Uncle Sam’s List, which enables government agencies to in-source services from other federal agencies.

Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship and Innovation

The lag in women’s participation in entrepreneurship and innovation is a matter worthy of public policy attention as the McNair Center’s Tay Jacobe details; however, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act and the INSPIRE Act do little to address these issues.

Women in the NSF I-Corps

nsf-i-corps-oct-20111
The 2011 pilot I-Corps program was a mixed gender group, although women do appear to be in the minority.

The Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act directs the National Science Foundation to “encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women.” The NSF’s premier entrepreneurship program is the Innovation Corps (I-Corps). I-Corps uses Steve Blank’s Lean Launchpad method to train NSF-funded scientists to turn their research findings into entrepreneurial ventures. Scientists who successfully complete the I-Corps program can receive additional support for their ventures. NSF’s Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/SBTT) programs financially support I-Corps.

When the bill was debated during the 114th Congress, the bill’s sponsor, Representative Elizabeth Esty (D-CT5), and the bill’s cosponsors did not present any evidence that the current NSF programs were failing to enroll women scientists and engineers. A picture of the 2011 pilot I-Corps program on Steve Blank’s blog shows a mixed gender group, although women do appear to be in the minority.

Several premier research universities, including Rice University, host I-Corps programs. The federal government requires that all participating universities are in compliance with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs, in order to receive funding.

Hidden Figures No More: Women in STEM at NASA

The INSPIRE Act directs NASA to continue support of three current initiatives. All of these programs seek to encourage girls and young women to pursue careers in STEM. Two of these initiatives—NASA Girls and NASA Boys and Aspire to Inspire—provide interested students with virtual contact with NASA mentors. The third—the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER)—is a week-long program for middle school girls at Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

Sponsored by Representative Barbara Comstock (R-VA10), this legislation directs NASA to continue supporting these programs, but does not mention expansion. The INSPIRE Act did not appropriate funds to support these programs, but funds were appropriated for NASA’s Office of Education in the agency’s fiscal 2017 budget, which became law on March 21.

President Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 eliminates funds for the NASA Office of Education , although NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot promises that the agency will  “continue to use every opportunity to support the next generation through engagement in our missions and the many ways that our work encourages the public to discover more” even if funds are not appropriated for the Office of Education.

The INSPIRE Act requires NASA to submit a plan to Congress on outreach to women. This will encourage communication between female K-12 students and retired astronauts, scientists, and engineers. In the floor debate, both Comstock and cosponsor Esty cited the importance of visible role models in motivating  young women to pursue STEM.

Nonetheless, the bill’s narrow scope will limit the effects of the INSPIRE Act. If Congress removes NASA Education Office funding in fiscal year 2018, INSPIRE, which received bipartisan support, will only result in a report on educational activities that the agency would have difficulty funding.

Impact

All three acts passed Congress with bipartisan support. This suggests a shared interest in furthering government innovation and expanding access to careers in entrepreneurship and STEM. This support also implies that political leaders are prioritizing action on the rapidly expanding high-tech, high-growth sector. This sector now accounts for one fifth of the U.S. economy.

Would Congress be willing to go beyond the limited scope of these bills to effect truly innovative public policy? Past congressional sessions have devoted little attention these issues. However, Majority Leader McCarthy’s Innovation Initiative, including all three of the discussed bills, suggests that this neglect will not continue.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

The International Entrepreneur Rule: The US Startup Visa

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SEPTEMBER 7: Atmosphere during the TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2013 Hackathon inside The Concourse at San Francisco Design Center on September 7, 2013 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/TechCrunch) *** Local Caption ***

The Obama administration proposed new provisions for immigrant entrepreneurs in August 2016. The administration designed the proposal to attract international entrepreneurial talent to the United States, especially in advanced technology fields. In mid-January, with only days left in President Obama’s term, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finalized the details of the “International Entrepreneur Rule.” It is scheduled to go into effect on July 17, 2017. Whether it goes into effect will depend on President Trump’s immigration plan, which may see changes in the current H1-B visa program.
statue

Overview

The International Entrepreneur Rule would allow USCIS to grant discretionary parole to international entrepreneurs for two and a half years . However, entrepreneurs may struggle to qualify for a parole grant unless they are already involved in a successful venture. The rule states that first-time applicants must own at least 10% of a U.S. startup that is less than five years old and play a significant role in its management.

Applicants must also demonstrate that their startup has high potential for growth and job creation. The two main avenues for satisfying this criterion are demonstrating that the company has received $250,000 or more in venture capital from “established U.S. investors” or at least $100,000 or more in funding from government entities. Applicants that do not meet these standards may still qualify if they can demonstrate “significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant’s (or family’s) parole into the United States.”

After their initial parole is over, entrepreneurs may apply to extend their stay for an additional two and a half years. In order to receive an extension, entrepreneurs must show that their startups have “shown signs of significant growth.” A total of two parole grants is the maximum; there are no further extensions. If entrepreneurs wish to stay longer, they must find another method to secure a visa or a green card.

Analysis

When this rule was originally proposed by the Obama administration, it received early praise; Tim Ryan, the co-founder of Startup San Diego, applauded the proposal as a step in the right direction.

However, government agencies only expect this rule to impact a very limited number of entrepreneurs. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a mere 2,940 international entrepreneurs will qualify annually. DHS also estimates they will bring approximately 3,234 dependents and spouses. In contrast, the USCIS approved 85,000 H1-B visas in the 2014 fiscal year.

The high level of investment required may serve as a hurdle for applicants. Y Combinator, widely considered the world’s best startup accelerator, only offers startups a maximum of $120,000 in investment funding. However, to qualify for the proposed International Entrepreneur Rule, USCIS expects companies to have at least $250,000. Not only that, but this money must come from investors with a record of repeated investment successes. Some policy advocates worry that there simply will not be enough reputable investors able to provide that level of funding. Moreover, even if some investors can fulfill the requirement, they may not all have the necessary experience to satisfy the rule.

The rule may help to keep entrepreneurial talent in the U.S., but will do little to attract new recruits. The applicant pool may be limited by the requirements that the company must be U.S.-founded and that the applicant have a significant role in the company. Because of these specifications, applicants must be individuals who are already in the U.S. Nonetheless, this rule may help international students at U.S. universities who are unable to acquire H-1B visas.

There is also an issue of time — entrepreneurs only have five years, maximum. The high levels of investment required for initial application and renewal may put strain on startups. TechCrunch puts the average time of an “IPO-track startup” at about seven years, although it can take up to ten years. Given this information, the parole periods may not be long enough to positively impact startups.

Ultimately, potential investors may view the startup visa as an undesirable risk. Investors will be aware of the possibility that a company, or at least its key members, could lose immigration status.

Lastly, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration will alter the details of the rule. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman informed CNN on January 23 that the DHS is still awaiting guidance on how President Trump’s executive order freezing new and pending regulations will impact the International Entrepreneur Rule’s implementation.

Learning from Other Countries

The U.S. is not the first to propose a visa for startup entrepreneurs. Many other countries have established their own processes for admitting international entrepreneurs, including the United Kingdom, Canada and France.

The U.K. allows individuals wishing to set up or take over a business within its borders to apply for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneurship) Visa which can be extended before they can apply for settlement or an indefinite leave to remain. The U.K.’s financial requirements for applicants are also more flexible than the U.S. requirements in sources and amounts of funding. The U.K. startup visa does not require that applicants start the business themselves. Instead, intention of starting a new business, taking over one or providing significant funding is enough.

Canada seeks to attract innovative talent by tying them to government-approved Canadian entities with a goal of facilitating long-term success. The Canadian Start-Up Visa Program focuses on the creation of new startups. Applicants must obtain at least one letter of support that details funding from a list of designated organizations. This includes venture capital funds, angel investor groups and business incubators.

France launched its French Tech Visa in 2016 to complement the “French Tech Ticket” program it began in 2015. The French Tech Ticket program selects 70 international entrepreneur teams and provides funding and support with a French incubator for a year. The French Tech Visa expands this program to attract foreign startup founders, exceptional talent, investors and angels by offering renewable visas.

The U.S. could look into incorporating aspects of these programs to compete for the top foreign entrepreneurs. For example, the entrepreneurs can only renew this visa once; perhaps lawmakers could extend its duration or allow additional renewals. The U.S. could also aid the integration of accepted businesses into the startup and tech communities. These changes, however, would be dependent on President Trump’s immigration policy.

Conclusion

Eligibility requirements of the International Entrepreneur Rule are rigorous, and the time period allotted by the visa is short. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed startup visa would have little, if any, economic impact. Moreover, if President Trump repeals the order, there may be little hope for a truly meaningful startup visa. While Trump vows to “establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first,” his exact plans for reforming H-1B visas, including the possibility of a startup visa, are unclear.