[Editor's note: This is an Op-Ed piece by Daniel Cohen, a venture capitalist at Gemini Israel Funds. He blogs about the Internet and the Israeli Venture Capital here.]
Here are some facts: Israel is the 3rd largest high-tech & venture capital center in the world. Israel is the #1 startup-producer in Europe (And this is in absolute numbers, not only relative to GDP). Israel has a strong position in the high-tech world, a position that is getting stronger with globalization .
Israel’s venture capital industry is celebrating its 15 anniversary and is looking stronger than ever. New funds are being raised, the deal flow quality is excellent, and the absolute number of funded startups is on the rise (For specific data, check IVC Online). In parallel, more and more US venture capitalists are entering the market, either through dedicated Israeli funds (Sequoia, Greylock, Benchmark), or through local representatives (Lightspeed, Venrock, Battery, Canaan, Bessemer, and many others).
In summary, Israel has brand recognition, a growing investor base, and high-quality entrepreneurs. Israel is famous for producing small companies with outstanding technology.
In spite of this, there are no examples of great Israeli break out companies – no Israeli equivalent of Google, Microsoft or Nokia. The one cloud hanging over the Israel high-tech scene is doubt about whether it can grow a large, successful, $1bn company. The top-tier US VCs have made their returns on a few very large grand slams. It’s very hard to build a top quartile venture fund with just singles & doubles.
Some argue that the Israeli entrepreneurs don’t have the mentality (i.e. patience) to actually build large companies. That’s already been proven wrong. Here is an example of some successful Israeli tech companies: Comverse ($3.9bn), Checkpoint ($5.8bn), Nice ($2.0bn), Amdocs ($7.8bn), Mercury (sold to HP for $4.5bn). These 5 companies are/were profitable, strong, and well-proven. However, they are all Old. Very Old. Checkpoint, the youngest of the group, was founded in 1993. This was 14 years ago.
So why does Israel lack large $1bn+ companies? I believe there were four key drivers for this, and all these drivers are now changing.
1. Entrepreneurs want to retire with $3-$4M: Till about 5-10 years ago, many Israeli entrepreneurs were looking to retire with few millions of dollars. There were not a lot of multi-millionaires in Israel, and the overall standard of living was not comparable to the United States. This is changing (for the good and the bad). People want nicer cars, bigger homes, and more exotic vacations. Suddenly, entrepreneurs are starting to think about $20M or $50M as their cash targets. If a company was started by 3 founders, a founder will see $50M only if his company reaches a very high valuation.
2. Impatience of investors: but it’s not only because of the entrepreneurs. Many of the VCs were happy to sell, and sell early. They were eager to show initial returns to their LPs, and did not have the belief or the courage (guts) to stick with the company in order to extract the most value. As I mentioned before, there is now a clear understanding that real venture returns will only come from big hits.
3. “Think small” mentality: In the past, Israeli companies were not focused on building the required foundations to become a significant market player: high quality management, strong financial support, and a large mainstream target market. I recently heard an interesting comparison between an Israeli company and its US competitor. The US Company raised $100M is now worth $3bn. The Israeli version spent “only” $20M, and is now worth… $25M. However, there are indications that all this is changing. As an example, Metacafe raised to date more than $50M, hired a top-rate US-based CEO, and is clearly trying to become a dominant player in the online video market.
4. The lack of $1bn experience: In Sports, it’s very hard to win a championship if none of your team members went through a past championship experience. The same goes with successful companies. If you have seen it once, you believe that you can see it again. In the early high-tech days in Israel, the entrepreneurs were all new. We are now seeing successful entrepreneurs returning to start new companies with bigger ideas. An example of that can be Dov Moran who founded M-Systems (Sold to SanDisk for $1.5bn) and just started a new company called InFone (Disclaimer: Gemini is an investor in InFone). These entrepreneurs are usually joined by Israelis that have returned from the US with substantial experience in large & successful companies.
The Israeli entrepreneurs and investors are all recognizing the importance of this issue. The theme of the last IVA (Israel Venture Association) conference in Tel-Aviv was “Start up big!” with a clear focus on how to build larger companies. Can it be done? People in Israel always say that we will never create an “Israeli Nokia”. Personally, I believe that in 5-10 years those people will be proven wrong.
13 Comments
-
Aner Ravon said:
Great post on a somewhat painful subject.
I agree with the findings, although not so sure the drivers are changing that dramatically, I hope they do. I’m not sure Metacafe has chosen the growth path and that it had any choice once the M&A path got shut by Google buying YouTube. I also doubt the Israeli founders are less “romantic” and ambitious than their US counterparts. Retiring at $4M would please many people, most people, but a lot of Israeli entrepreneurs have much bigger dreams of “changing the world”.
Out of the reasons you mentioned, there are two that I would point as key. The first one is the financial structure. The Israeli high tech industry is almost solely fueled by VC money. VCs prefer not to take the risk of gambling for IPOing an Israeli company when a $100-$300M exit to an American enterprise is at hand. After all, who would be fired for agreeing to sell under such parameters? and who would survive passing on such a deal for a failure later on? An exit at that stage is typically built around $10M-$20M annual revenue, little or no profitability. I’ve seen companies getting packaged for an exit as soon as they got their first big contract. In “big company” terms, this is a company that may have proven its technology, product and business model, but has not yet grown scalable operations. The acquisition is going to take care of exactly that. And if that’s the required profile, why bother with scaling operations? The focus is on proving technology, getting key customers and getting out. This is, in many ways, the true definition of sizing the opportunity.
The second key is the perceived shortage of Israeli executives who can potentially scale such a company. I am using the term perceived because there are plenty of excellent Israeli executives who run very large operations. However, and this may not be politically correct, American executives know how to push the Israeli buttons - they are much more organized, have a much better Rolodex, know how to construct a marketing strategy and have great command of the English language. Don’t underestimate the impact of these parameters on the typcial Israeli Founder, CEO and Investor. The Israeli business culture looks up to the American business culture and this means Israeli companies feel uncomfortable in competing with larger American competitors. While Israeli companies feel somewhat comfortable in “traditional” Israeli high tech pockets, such as security (checkpoint) and communications (Comverse, Amdocs), they feel totally the opposite in Enterprise software, Media and “Internet”, not to mention consumer electronics.
An Israeli Nokia at some point? Maybe. IPOs need to get back in fashion first, and so does “Chutspa”, that intangible ingredient that fueled Teva, Iscar, CheckPoint and Comverse.
-
Sam Daoud said:
Great article, very insightful. However one of your “facts” is misleading. You state “Israel is the #1 startup-producer in Europe” Sure that may be true if Israel were in Europe. Last I checked on the map, it was in the Middle East. Might want to have that corrected as it takes away from the authors credibility.
-
Alex said:
Comverse CEO Found Hiding in Sri Lankan Fishing Village
kobi alexander
An Israeli newspaper reported Thursday that Kobi Alexander, the voicemail technology fugitive wanted in the U.S. on stock option manipulation charges, has escaped to a small fishing village in Sri Lanka.
But wait, there’s more: Alexander, the head of U.S.-based voicemail firm Comverse Technology (CMVT), ran for it, but not before transferring $57-million to an Israeli bank account. It took a private investigator hired by an unnamed U.S. venture capital firm to track Alexander down. How? Apparently via “an Internet phone call” made by the Sri Lanka-hiding CEO. -
Arnon Kohavi said:
Some contrarian view:
1)It is better to sell companies at the peak, take the money and start new ventures, rather than hoping your company will become the next Nokia, and not the next 3Com or RAD.
2)DSPC and Chromatics sold at the right time. Saifun waited too long. What is better?
3)Many of the Israeli companies that sold, kept the R&D in Israel, so the expertise remained in the country and was used to seed new companies.
4)Teva is the Israeli equivalent of Nokia, but it is the exception. CMVT, AMDOCS, MERQ came close, but never made it.
5)To create a true large company, the management needs to be multinational, a tough thing to do in Israel, most of the companies mentioned above were US-based with ex-Israelis managing them, so is that considered Israeli? -
Jonathan said:
Very good points Daniel,
I’ve worked for one of the most successful Israeli software companies as well as some startups. I think there’s an additional issue here related to the lack of $1bn experience:
Israeli companies are often led by people who are very good at tactics: they are resourceful, fast, assiduous so they build good products quickly and win deals.
On the other hand, they often lack strategic vision - they compare poorly with their US counterparts, and they don’t aggressively or creatively seek new avenues of growth beyond their initial cores. So when the core dries up, so does the growth - and they hit that $1bn ceiling.
Maybe it’s the military mindset, who knows?
-
Guy Horowitz said:
‘Guilty as charged’ on all four counts… but there are some extrnalities which cannot be ignored.
1. Very small (actually non-existent) local market. American and European companies have a ‘fertilizer’ in their first few years in the form of large and friendly local or neighboring markets. Even Nokia, which clearly does not sell too many handsets in Finland, has enjoyed early success in fairly large neighbor countries. As all of us know, Israel’s nearest significant market is a few hours (and several trade tariffs and taxes) away. There are many markets which are practically irrelevant for Israel for obvious reasons. It does not stop companies from growing, but it certainly slows down their growth in the first few years, which helps wear out the stakeholders’ patience.
BTW - This is less relevant in the Internet space, where geographical borders have almost no significance. Israel has played a major part in building the global online gaming industry, and has generated at least two major IPOs - it’s just something VCs don’t brag about…2. We’re shooting for the fences, but we just came out of minor league. Our fences used to be much closer, so even a double down the left field is perceived as a home-run. As you said, our VC industry is fairly new, give us some time to get used to the majors.
3. The management gap. Maybe a bad name for the phenomenon we all know - Israelis are great entrepreneurs but (on the whole) are not great executives when it comes to outbound / strategy. We are getting there, but it will take time. Israel’s VC industry hasn’t done extremely well in attracting foreign executive talent, or even repatriating great Israeli executives who live abroad. (BTW - Microsoft has done it - getting Moshe Lichtman, a senior VP, to go back to Israel and start its Israeli strategic development center). If we get more management talent over, we’ll certainly see more mature sell/grow decisions.
BTW - Metacafe is a great example, but we have all seen the headlines just a year ago. My personal view, and I might be wrong, is that they also preferred selling over growing, but the price was not right. But then again, this might have been the case with many other companies who eventually made it big.
-
Harshal Vaidya said:
Exactly same mentality exists in India. Even we here are desperately wanting to build the next Google like companies rather than low-end, cheap labor outsourcing !!
-
shuly Galili said:
Very insightful and imoprtant issue for the future of Israel’s tech industry. In my mind Israeli entrepreneurs posess excellent drive, creativity and guts…obviously talent. What is often missing is ability to accept and implement processes and long term strategic vision. It is all a matter of time and we know…there are some great leaders out there already who grow great companies…Guy Gecht (EFI), Eyal Waldman (Mellanox) etc.
-
Yoav said:
The only way an Israeli Nokia can evolve is by rare combination of sheer luck, great technology and exeptional people.
As the sole source for funding in Israel is VCs, there are a couple of things that prevent it to happen:
1. Israeli VCs will NOT place big bets on founders who are 1st timers. 99% of the cases, they will NOT place a bet at all. That is not the case with some prominent US VCs, who build big companies by placing big bets on 1st timers.
2. Israeli VCs place mid bets ONLY on 2nd Israeli timers, or prominent American Execs. 2nd Israeli timers are after more money, and when the 1st opportunity comes along they will take the money and go, as well as their VCs. If things go bad, they will not care as much. That is why many 2nd companies of 2nd timers are crap. -
Your Own Cooking said:
Danny - if I offer you 200,000,000 for adapt.tv today, are you a taker or passer?
-
xdpbkcieh fvicwmd said:
yhgekj wflno xvokpt ofuelgstx jhcu kurdfnps gqxzrayef
-
oizlh grjwympot said:
dhlktovef wvfxycj wmip rnqo fdybio zqopiafym mygx [URL=http://www.ocfxgke.bikre.com]eyani dlcr[/URL]
-
dovecs izvjad said:
pyarfqk fdobt panmjik sncjfxp hyfl yfzsv ufybhjveo [URL]http://www.artoyfgw.tnquc.com[/URL] botu mfvrziy
One Trackback
5:38 pm
Wrapping the Israeli internet scene in 2007 | Venture Capital Cafe said:
[...] ideas were more than just features, but to echo Gemini’s Danny Cohen in his interview to Venture Beat, we haven’t seen game-changing products coming out of Israel this [...]