Tag: Texas

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Weekly Entrepreneurship Roundup 4/14

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:

How to Make Texas More Startup-Friendly

Iris Huang, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

McNair Center’s Huang interviews Blake Commagere, entrepreneur, angel investor and startup mentor in the San Francisco Bay Area on how to improve an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Commagere graduated from Rice University in 2003 with a degree in Computer Science. Upon graduation, Commagere moved to Austin to begin his career as an entrepreneur and soon decided to move to Silicon Valley. Commagere has raised over $12 million in VC, started seven companies and sold five.

Commagere describes the pull of talent toward San Francisco as “a virtuous cycle,” where “former successful startup founders become the next generation angel investors and venture capitalists, who fund and help more startups succeed.” Silicon Valley’s concentrated network of VC firms and tech startups provide struggling entrepreneurs with a vast pool of mentorship opportunities, funding resources and talent. Budding startups heavily rely on local tech networks for early-stage support and advice. In order to develop its entrepreneurial ecosystem, Texas cities need to focus on building its tech space.

Additionally, the state’s cities must expand their VC presence. Otherwise, there will always be too many startups fighting for too little capital (as if this isn’t a problem already), and startups will continue to move to cities like San Francisco. Startups depend on local VC firms because many firms refrain from investing in companies outside their primary city. When firms do invest in outside companies, the qualification bar is set much higher.

Medical Device Startups and the FDA

Iris Huang, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

McNair Center’s Huang takes a look at the FDA approval process for medical devices. The medical device industry is a $140 billion market. For many companies in the industry, obtaining FDA approval is a long and costly path. For some, it’s a barrier. Of the 6,500 companies in medtech, 80 percent are composed of fewer than 50 employees.

A Stanford University survey of over 200 medtech companies found that the average cost for a low-to-moderate-risk 510(k) product to obtain FDA clearance was $31 million. The same survey found that it took these products 31 months from initial communications with the FDA to obtain clearance. For startups, these costs pose significant barriers to entry. Huang aptly summarizes this dilemma: “as the cost of getting to market approaches the average exit value, the medtech funding equation looks less attractive to venture capitalists.”

The FDA approval process acts as an essential screening point in the medtech industry. However, Huang recommends that policymakers consider possible ways to alleviate the significant burdens placed on the businesses involved in the development of these critical technologies.

First Data Joins Silicon Valley Bank In Fintech Accelerator

Tom Groenfeldt, Contributor, Forbes
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) recently announced a collaboration with First Data, a global payments technology solutions company, on Commerce.Innovated, its fintech accelerator. Commerce.Innovated, founded in 2014, is a four-month long virtual accelerator for startups in the financial services and technologies sector. The accelerator, unlike most early stage accelerators, focuses on startups that have already secured or are in the process of securing seed or Series A funding.

According to SVB’s Reetika Grewal, the accelerator looks for firms with “five to 10 people with an idea they are committed to.” In this stage, startups usually require help with the “operational,” rather than conceptual, front of development. Commerce.Innovated helps fintech firms bring their solutions to market. Since these startups already possess strong leadership with a clear vision for their product, a virtual platform makes sense.

A $150 Million Fund, The Engine, Will Back Startups Others Find ‘Too Hard’

Lora Kolodny, Contributor, TechCrunch

The Engine is a venture fund and accelerator for “advanced technology startups.” The new fund recently closed its debut round at $150 million. Startups in The Engine’s portfolio gain access to one of MIT’s unique resources, The Engine Room, a laboratory for small startups to develop and test their technologies. In addition to to The Engine Room, startups also receive access to laboratory equipment and technologies from organizations in the greater Boston area.

Despite its close affiliation to MIT, The Engine invests “in teams and technologies that hail from a variety of industry and academic backgrounds, not just from the MIT ecosystem.” The Engine supports companies involved in the development of “hard-tech” – so basically anything “from advanced materials and manufacturing technologies to medical devices, robotics, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, fusion and more.”

Hard-tech startups typically face higher costs, more risk and a longer development period than most B2B or consumer-focused software. These startups often find it difficult to find VCs willing to invest in their innovative, but risky technologies. The Engine, according to the fund’s CEO Katie Rae, is dedicated to lowering the costs of development and testing “hard-tech” and encouraging more entrepreneurs to go into the field.

Tax Reform Must Help Small Businesses, Too

Laurie Sprouse, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

Laurie Sprouse, a small business owner from Dallas, covers tax reform and small businesses for The Wall Street Journal. As Sprouse points out, small businesses have added two thirds of new jobs to the U.S. economy in recent years. Still, analysts and policymakers continually propose tax overhauls that largely ignore the plight of small firms. Instead, politicians and reporters alike focus on alleviating financial burdens for larger corporations and providing helpful, but insufficient, tax credits for small businesses. According to Sprouse, “Only a plan that benefits businesses of all sizes equally will create the broad economic growth President Trump and Congress seek.”

Stripe Acquires Indie Hackers in Bid to Strengthen Relationship with Entrepreneurs

Ken Yeung, Contributor, VentureBeat

Founded in 2010, tech company Stripe delivers application programming interfaces (APIs) that support electronic payments for consumers and businesses. Recently, the firm announced plans to acquire Indie Hackers, a startup dedicated to creating an internet community for entrepreneurs to share their success stories and lessons. While the financial terms of the deal remain unclear, it seems that site will operate as an independent subsidiary of Stripe.

Indie Hackers founder, Courtland Allen, describes his site as a “community where successful founders could share their valuable stories and insights, and where aspiring entrepreneurs could go for inspiration and advice.” Meanwhile Stripe executives view the deal as an opportunity to grow “the GDP of the internet” by increasing the “overall number” of successful businesses.

In an interview with VentureBeat, a Stripe spokesperson revealed that the company wants to support Indie Hackers’ mission by taking on some of the budding site’s financial burden. In just under a year, the site already runs a monthly profit of $6,000. Going forward, Allen hopes to see Indie Hackers take on a similar role as Y Combinator’s Hacker News.

The Weekly Roundup will return in June. 

Categories
McNair Center Rice Entrepreneurs Startup Ecosystems

How to Make Texas More Startup-friendly

profileOver the last decade, Blake Commager (@commagere) has raised over $12 million in venture capital funding, started seven companies and sold five—including the first version of Facebook Causes and some of the most popular apps on Facebook, such as Zombies and Vampires. Born and raised in Midland, Texas, Commager graduated from Rice in 1999 and moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in 2003.

Commagere is the CEO of MediaSpike and an angel investor, advising several startups in the Bay Area. His varied experience in the tech startup space, from founder to investor and mentor, gives him a comprehensive perspective on the Silicon Valley startup ecosystem. As Commagere worked at a startup and tried to start a company in Austin before moving out to Silicon Valley, I was interested in learning why he chose to move out to the Bay Area and what Texas could do to better support startups.

Iris Huang: What brought you to the Silicon Valley?

Blake Commagere: I had always been interested in solving the problem of address book updating. In 2003, a friend of mine and I were working on our own company in Austin, and while doing competitive analysis, we found out Plaxo, a startup in Mountain View, California, was trying to solve the same problem. I liked their solution and they already had funding so I moved here to join the company.

I also felt the pressure to move to the Bay Area. By virtue of having a high concentration of tech talent, the Bay Area created a gravitational pull for even more tech talent. You see that with a lot of industries—they blow up largely in a few cities and as the ecosystem develops around them, the momentum increases, which makes it harder for other cities to compete. The more talent it has, the more successful the industry becomes in the region, the more new talent comes. The concentration of talent creates a virtuous cycle—in the Bay Area, the former successful startup founders become the next generation angel investors and venture capitalists, who fund and help more startups succeed.

The concentration of talent in the Bay Area has two main advantages:

The sheer concentration of talent and ecosystem make the process of building a startup easier, not a lot easier, but even if it’s just 2 percent easier, that makes all the difference. Given how hard it is to build a company, anything that makes it a little easier can be incredibly important. The high concentration of talent in the Bay Area makes it easier for startups to hire good employees. Startups will also have an easier time meeting people who can provide advice and introduce them to investors.

The large tech community in the Bay Area also provides a lot of emotional support, which turns out to be extremely important for startup founders. What’s unique about entrepreneurship is the combination of the high level of stress and lack of experience and resources. It’s very intimidating as an entrepreneur when you have a dozen things you have to do today but you have no idea how to do any of them. No business school teaches you what you need at a startup day to day. Sometimes other founders can’t help you either, but at least, you can commiserate with them. For example, after you pitch to a dozen VCs and no one wants to invest, you can talk to your community—they’ve all been through the pain so they understand how you feel. The therapeutic value of the commiseration is really important. You won’t feel so lonely, which, in addition to the hardship of building a company, could be overwhelming.

IH: How can Texas cities become more friendly to founders?

BC: A good ecosystem for startups cannot be developed overnight. It takes several entrepreneur/venture capital cycles—maybe over 20 years.

Someone should have a laser focus on building the tech community so entrepreneurs no longer feel alone in their journey. What entrepreneurs are trying to do is just too overwhelming to do on their own. They will leave for somewhere that has a supportive community if they can’t find the mentorship and network locally. In Austin, most of the time meetings happen by chance. Serendipity is unreliable—someone needs to build a tight knit community and make sure the support network is well-organized.

Someone has to bring capital there. No matter how great the idea is, you need to have money to fund it and make it happen. The number of VC firms and the amount of VC funding in Texas are limited (Note: total VC funding in Austin is $834 million, as compared to $25 billion in Silicon Valley according to the MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers). In Silicon Valley, there are so many funds; a startup can be rejected by a dozen of the top VC firms and still be able to raise funds from hundreds of other VCs. However, in Austin, if you pitch to Austin Ventures and they say no, your fundraising is over.

Also, with a small number of VCs, their time is limited so they can only invest in a small number of companies. Imagine if there are 100 great startups that deserve to be funded but there are only six general partners in your region. Simply for lack of VCs, some of these companies won’t get what they need to survive.

IH: Why is it necessary to raise VC funds locally?

BC: Silicon Valley VCs are unlikely to invest in startups in Texas. VCs have strong motivation to invest in nearby companies because the nature of venture capital investing—95 percent of startups fail—forces them to use their time wisely. VCs usually take board seats at the startups they invest in. Every board seat they take is an opportunity cost, preventing them from taking others. When VCs invest in startups in other cities, they have to travel for board meetings. So the time they spend on that board seat is longer and the opportunity cost for that investment is higher. That’s why you can’t expect Bay Area VCs to invest in Texas startups and when they do, the bar might be three times higher for Texas startups than Bay Area startups.

Funding is not the only value VCs provide for startups; their professional network plays an important role in helping startups succeed as well. However, VCs’ network is geographically dependent. If the startups are far away, they will not be able to benefit from VCs’ powerful network. This lowers their chance of success. This also discourages VCs from investing outside their primary cities.

Raising a fund to start a VC firm in Austin or Houston could be challenging—the new VCs will have to take the extra step to convince potential limited partners that “there is a reason and opportunity to invest here,” instead simply joining all the other VCs are in the Bay Area. However, this is what has to happen. Ideally, the new VCs have built their career and network in Texas for many years, which gives them the motivation and ability to raise a fund locally.

IH: How can Texas cities retain local talent?

BC: It all comes back to the availability of VC funding. Frequently I see announcements that a city is hoping to make the city more attractive to startups with programs for office space or professional services. None of that is a big expense compared to your employee costs. Some people argue that since everything is more expensive in the Bay Area, it makes sense to stay in Austin or Houston. For example, with $1 million funding, you might be able to hire 10 employees in Houston, but in the Bay Area, you can only hire 5 employees with similar credentials. However, this is an unrealistic comparison. In Houston, you are more likely to get $0 funding so really you can’t hire anyone while in the Bay Area, you might be able to get $1 million and hire 5 employees.

Each entrepreneur has their own timeline—when they need to raise funding, if there’s no funding available in Austin or Houston, they either have to shut down their startups or move to the Bay Area and raise money here. Right now everyone just follows the gravity and moves to the Bay Area because that’s the easiest. Texas is losing the tech talents and startups that create so many jobs to the Bay Area. It is very important to break the cycle. Step one is to stop the talent drain with VC funding and keep startups here. As the ecosystem matures, the long-term goal is to make it as easy to raise funding in major Texas cities as in the Bay Area.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Austin’s Venture Capital

Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

In my previous blog post, I discussed Austin, Texas’ strong history of entrepreneurship and the many resources in the ecosystem. Supportive Austin policies have resulted in the creation of the Entrepreneur Center of Austin, and resources like Capital Factory and Tech Ranch Austin have emerged. Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem appeared to be healthy.

A recent PitchBook Report discussing venture capital in Austin shows the ecosystem to not be as healthy as previously thought. In 2014, Austin saw 286 deals closed at a value of $1.4 billion. Similarly, in 2015, 296 deals closed or $1.3 billion. 2016 saw a substantial decrease in the number and value of deals closed with 199 deals closed at a value of $978 million.

Austin’s ecosystem reflects a nationwide trend in declining deals. According to PitchBook, the number of deals closed nationwide had been rising steadily since 2009, peaking in 2014 with 10,501 deals closed. 2015 and 2016 both saw decreases in the number of deals closed; 10,293 and 8,136 respectively. The 8,136 deals closed in 2016 is the lowest number of deals closed since 2012.

An insufficient supply of startups and an increased perception of risk are decreasing VC investment in the Austin ecosystem. Investors likely fear that the oversupply of capital that has been invested in the system in 2014 and 2015 has led to slumping returns, so they are pulling back their investments. Once VC investment balances out, it is likely that Austin will see investment increase again.

Outside investment in Austin-based companies soared in 2014 and 2015, as respectively, 396 and 370 investors from outside the Austin metropolitan statistical area invested in Austin-based ventures. In 2015, Austin had the most venture capital invested in its first financings with $324 million. However, venture capital activity in the United States overall has declined. Austin’s most prominent VC fund, Austin Ventures, closed in 2015. After the two-year boom period from 2014 to 2015, the rate of VC investing in Austin startups has slid considerably over the 2016 period.

Austin’s diverse ecosystem is an asset to the stability of VC investment in the area. While the majority of VC activity occurs in the software industry, the pharmaceutical and biotech industry also attract significant VC investment. In 2015, 12 deals were closed in health care devices and services, and in 2016, 11 deals. The opening of the Dell Seton Medical Center and Capital City Innovation, which will work to connect entrepreneurs with healthcare research, will likely contribute to increases in VC for health care devices and services.

According to a McNair Center Report, VC investment in Texas is falling. Yet Austin’s relatively low costs and the boom of angel/seed investment have given Austin a reputation as a thriving startup ecosystem in a state where VC investment is dropping. Despite decreases in a 2016 VC investment in the region, it is likely that Austin will see investment in crease again after VC investment balances out.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

Reducing Recidivism through Entrepreneurship

High rates of recidivism in the United States negatively affect prisons, inmates, the government and tax-paying citizens. In 2013, the U.S. imprisoned 2,220,300 people. A Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that within three years of release, 67.8% of released prisoners were rearrested. Utah_State_Prison_Wasatch_FacilityWithin five years, 76.6% of released prisoners were rearrested.

Researchers typically link recidivism to unemployment, low levels of education, mental health problems, inability to re-integrate into society after prison, impulsiveness, association with other criminals, family instability and as well as other factors.

High levels of recidivism costs states millions of dollars; A Pew Charitable Trusts study estimated that if 41 states cut their recidivism rates by 10%, they would save $635 million. On top of the monetary costs for the states, recidivism rates have a negative effect on families and communities including family instability and a higher probability that a family will live in poverty. Solving the recidivism issue would not only save the government and taxpayers money, but it would also improve the lives of former inmates and those around them.

Entrepreneurship Potential of Inmates

A variety of entrepreneurs and public service organizations have developed programs to empower prisoners and combat high recidivism rates. Notable social entrepreneurship programs such as the Last Mile and Cafe Momentum provide leadership skills and help reduce recidivism through a variety of methods. The Last Mile, as the McNair Center’s Julia Wang describes, focuses on teaching inmates business and computer skills in California. Cafe Momentum, a functional restaurant in Dallas, gives released youth offenders transferable life skills related to the restaurant industry.

While social entrepreneurship is a start, what about actually teaching entrepreneurship skills to prisoners?

While some might assume that inmates are incapable of holding down a job, let alone establishing their own businesses, the reality is that many people leaving the prison system are potential entrepreneurs. Inmates that took the Miner Sentence Completion Scale-Form T test, an assessment of entrepreneurial aptitude, scored higher than average entrepreneurs, slow-growth entrepreneurs and manager scientists. Additionally, many inmates are in prison due to their participation in illegal forms of entrepreneurship, including drug trafficking and smuggling. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt remarks that the gang in Sudhir Venkatesh’s study of the drug trade acted as a franchise for the larger Black Disciples organization. Coupled with the willingness to take risks that characterizes many inmates, prisoners could be prime candidates for entrepreneurship.

Prison Entrepreneurship Program

One of the most notable and successful programs is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP), an innovative rehabilitation program aimed at transforming inmates in Texas. PEP places carefully selected inmates through a four-month business education program. This program teaches them skills valuable in entrepreneurial settings, including financial literacy, an employment workshop, a business etiquette course and a Toastmasters class. Participants take over forty exams and interact with business executives. The final exam involves a thirty-minute business-plan presentation. PEP also provides a prison-release and post-prison components including follow-up and startup mentoring.

PEP’s results demonstrate a fantastic return on investment, especially given the 1,300+ participants. 100% of PEP graduates find jobs within 90 days of release. Nearly 100% of these graduates stay employed after a year. Since 2004, PEP graduates have launched more than 200 businesses. Six of these generate over $1 million in gross annual revenue. Most importantly, PEP graduates have a recidivism rate of less than 7%.

Defy Ventures

Defy Ventures also provides an entrepreneurial education to inmates. This national organization, which mostly operates in New York and California, describes itself as “an entrepreneurship, employment and character development training program for currently and formerly incarcerated men, women and youth.” It puts former inmates, mostly former leaders of drug rings and gangs, through a two-month training program. Defy Ventures graduates of this program are eligible to apply for a 12-month entrepreneurship program in which they compete for startup grants. This program has a 3% recidivism rate and has produced more than 150 startups. Most of these startups are small businesses, such as eco-friendly cleaning services. Defy has distributed over half a million dollars to these startups and small businesses through business-pitch competition awards and micro-loans. Additionally, participants report a 95% employment rate within 7 months of enrolling in Defy.

Inmates to Entrepreneurs

Inmates to Entrepreneurs provides educational seminars on entrepreneurship, online resources and group-based support to help former inmates start low-capital businesses. This program, based in North Carolina, focuses on giving seminars on starting businesses in local prisons to inmates with six or fewer months to serve. Additionally, the organization brings in ex-offender mentors who run successful businesses. A.J. Ware, a member of the Board of Directors for this nonprofit noted in a TEDxRaleigh talk that participating inmates had less than a 3% recidivism rate. Additionally, former inmates had 75% employment rate within 90 days of release. Ware also stated that in 2012, participants started 14 business. Inmates to Entrepreneurs is unique in its ability to provide large-scale learning. Its online resources and seminars are easier to implement in a variety of locations compared to the other two programs.

For the Future

These three programs illustrate the potential of entrepreneurship programs in reducing U.S. recidivism rates. Expansion of these programs could potentially make the same positive impact on prison populations across the nation. However, it is also possible that the small size of these programs is integral to their success.

All of the programs described here carefully select a small group of participants. It may not be possible to target all parts of the prison population. Many of these programs have a competitive application process and low acceptance rate. Researchers could conduct further studies to see the effects of entrepreneurship programs on a large scale without rigorous selection criteria.

It may be impossible to use these programs to help all prisoners, so how many can these programs help? A 2012 Bureau of Justice Statistics statistic table on federal arrests indicates that approximately 20% of inmates could have entrepreneurial potential based on their crime. White-collar crime and drug trafficking offenses all indicate entrepreneurship potential. Targeting these specific offenders with entrepreneurship programs can help reduce recidivism.

Focusing on a small subset of the population still has long-term beneficial effects for inmates and their communities. PEP has a 340% return on every dollar donated due to reduced recidivism and reliance on government assistance. The potential economic benefit of an expansion of these programs could save the government and taxpayers millions of dollars.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Keep Austin Entrepreneurial

Austin, Texas

Ranked number one for startup activity in the last two years by the Kauffman Foundation, Austin, Texas is one of the strongest emerging entrepreneurship ecosystems in the United States. Austin’s history of entrepreneurship and supportive government has facilitated Austin’s emergence as an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Austin’s History of Entrepreneurship

During the 1970s and 1980s, Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem focused on computer and semiconductor manufacturing. Efforts by the Austin Chamber of Commerce, such as low mortgage rates for relocating staff and tax incentives, fueled the move of several major companies to Austin: IBM in 1967, Texas Instruments in 1969 and Motorola in 1974. A doubling in student attendance at the University of Texas in the early 1970s increased the educated workforce in the region.

The selection of Austin as the home of the Microelectronic Computer Corporation (MCC) in 1982 accelerated this concentration of high-tech companies. Facing fierce competition from Japan’s Fifth Generation Project, major U.S. companies banded together and created MCC, one of the largest computer research companies at the time. MCC chose Austin instead of Silicon Valley and Route 128 because the University of Texas offered MCC a subsidized lease and the Chamber of Commerce facilitated low-cost loans and reduced mortgage rates for staff moving to Austin.

Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

Initially, the Austin ecosystem was primarily large businesses, such as IBM and Texas Instruments. This focus changed after the oil slump and savings and loan crises of the late 1980s and early 1990s crippled the Texas economy. Austin was not spared. It had one of the highest commercial real estate vacancy rates in the country and companies laid off large numbers of employees.

In response, the University of Texas formed the Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) in 1989 to jumpstart the local economy through high-tech startups with high-growth potential. In 1989, Greg Kozmetsky, the brain behind ATI, founded Austin’s first angel network, the Capital Network. These initiatives provided a foundation for growth during the 1990s dot-com boom. Austin companies such as Garden.com, an online gardening shop that raised $50 million in venture capital, and DrKoop.com, an “Internet-based consumer health-care network,” that was worth more than $1 billion, found success in Austin.

In 2000, thirty Austin venture capitalists invested over $2 billion in entrepreneurship ventures. The subsequent burst of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s hurt Austin. After the 2001-2003 economic downturn, the region experienced major industrial restructuring and a renewal of entrepreneurship.

In 2003, the business community raised $11 million for Opportunity Austin, an economic development program. Opportunity Austin focused on recruiting new businesses, marketing Austin effectively and stimulating entrepreneurship and emerging technology sectors.

Less than five years after the last economic downturn, the Great Recession of 2008 set back many new Austin businesses. While venture capital and small business creation are not at the level they were during the dot-com boom, the rate of startup growth is currently 81.23 percent.

Entrepreneurship in Austin Now

Austin is experiencing yet another entrepreneurship boom. Austin now has the supportive policy structure, mentors and sector diversification required to finally establish a lasting ecosystem.

Austin’s cultural support of local businesses and responsive state and local government policies are fueling its start-up growth. The absence of state income tax incentivizes young professionals to work and settle in Texas. The local Austin government provides services for people considering starting a business such as BizAid Business Orientation and Small Business Program. The Entrepreneur Center of Austin and the Indus Entrepreneurs of Austin specifically provide support for start-ups. The University of Texas’ Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship, Growth and Renewal connects Austin entrepreneurs with resources.

As a result of Austin’s strong history of entrepreneurship, mentorship opportunities for nascent entrepreneurs are readily available. Austin companies, such as Dell, offer mentorship and accelerator programs. Entrepreneurial hubs, such as Tech Ranch Austin and Capital Factory, serve as an intersection between Austin incubators, accelerators, coworking spaces and also offer mentorship programs for entrepreneurs.

While known as “Silicon Hills,” Austin’s entrepreneurship economy is much more diversified than the computer chip and semiconductor industry that first enabled its growth. According to a 2015 Austin Technology Council report, approximately 14 percent of the $22.3 billion value of Austin’s tech companies came from semiconductors. Computer and peripheral equipment contributed 31 percent. Both Austin-born and transplanted companies focus on the bioscience, energy, clean-technology, water and IT/wireless industries. Austin has an extremely strong tech-focused entrepreneurship industry, but it also has successful media, education and social and craft/lifestyle ventures.

Venture Capital in Texas and Austin

Texas’ venture capital investment has decreased by 19 percent over the past ten years. To maintain a healthy entrepreneurship ecosystem, it is imperative that venture capital investment increases in the coming years.

Austin’s ecosystem lacks capital. In 2014, Austin saw 99 venture capital deals worth $739 million. In contrast, Silicon Valley saw 1,333 deals worth more than $27 billion. While there is no shortage of capital in Texas, there is a lack of capital access, information and government support. The majority of Texas capital is invested in oil, gas and real estate. These are considered by many to be less risky than entrepreneurship ventures. However, as oil prices fall, Texans should consider trying to raise growth and investing in entrepreneurial ventures.

Austin’s most prominent venture capital fund, Austin Ventures, closed in 2015. Phil Siegel and David Lack left to form Tritium Partners to provide capital for startups in Austin. Its first fund of $309 million is a fraction of the $900 million Austin Ventures raised at its peak. Silverton Partners and S3 Ventures have tried to fill the void left by Austin Ventures. However, none of these Austin venture capital funds have the capital or assets that Austin Ventures had.

Entrepreneurial Resources in Austin

Austin has a plethora of resources for entrepreneurs. The annual South by Southwest Festival provides networking opportunities. Companies are taking advantage of the 100,000 college students that graduate each year in the greater Austin area. The University of Texas at Austin boasts the Austin Technology Incubator under the IC² Institute, which has raised almost $700 million in investor capital to achieve this goal. Additionally, the Central Texas Angel Network provides capital and mentorship support for entrepreneurs in the Central Texas region.

What Starts in Austin, Changes the World

Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is moving towards national recognition. Favor, a food delivery app, is an alumni of ATI and backed by Austin’s S3 Ventures and Silverton Partners. HomeAway, an Austin based online rental marketplace, was established in 2005 and acquired by Expedia for $3.9 billion in 2015. In the upcoming years, it is critical that capital investment continues to support new ventures such as Favor and HomeAway. Austin’s ecosystem has the policy, talent and mentorship to be successful, but private and public efforts must continue to ensure its success.

Categories
McNair Center

A Conversation with Bob McNair

Bob McNair addresses the crowd with the Director of the McNair Center, Dr. Edward J. Egan.

On August 29, 2016, the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation hosted an evening with Bob McNair.  As the founder of Cogen Technologies and the founder, chairman, and CEO of the Houston Texans, McNair drew on his vast experience in business and philanthropy to offer advice to Rice University students and young professionals.

In 1960, McNair arrived in Houston with $700 and a goal to break into the trucking industry. However, after he established his trucking company, the industry became deregulated, forcing him into millions of dollars of debt. Despite this failure, McNair used his new knowledge of deregulation to find opportunity in three industries: intermodal transport, telecommunications, and cogeneration. Cogeneration, or the concurrent production of electricity and heat, became McNair’s most successful investment, and in 1999, he sold his company Cogen Technologies for $1.5 billion.

When asked for career advice, McNair emphasized to students and young professionals the importance of adding value to their environments. “The most important thing is putting yourself in a position where you can add the most value, and when you add the most value, the compensation will come to you,” he stated.

This idea of adding value was behind the $8 million endowment from the Robert and Janice McNair Foundation that launched the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice University, one of six across the country. McNair said, “this is an opportunity for us to make a real contribution to society and to help create an environment that empowers ingenuity and creativity, unleashes the productivity of private enterprise and builds sustainable economic growth.”

Read more in the Baker Institute’s newsletter and the Rice Thresher’s article on the event.