Comments on: The VC walking dead: Extended edition

By: SAC

SAC — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:09:12 +0000

The author is smokin' hot. BTW, Audax Group is highlighted but they're currently hiring, why would they be hiring if they were going to shut down.

By: Andrew J Scott

Andrew J Scott — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:09:59 +0000

Would be great to see a European list in the equivelent vain… it will be a lot shorter and more yellow

By: Rick Thau

Rick Thau — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:44:40 +0000

Diamondhead should not be listed here… they merged with Onset, and are doing fine.

By: dub

dub — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:37:12 +0000

Spectrum? TA? How about no…

By: OE

OE — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:16:21 +0000

Outlook Ventures should be listed in the deadpool. They haven't raised a new fund for years.

By: James Geshwiler

James Geshwiler — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:15:47 +0000

Not a bad first cut. For the record, CommonAngels is quite alive and well. We raised a new fund in 2005 but also aren't dependent on funds because we're also a large angel group that provides capital. We just announced a new investment, have a couple more in the works, and should have put VentureBeat on distribution list for the press release. http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/03/30/instre...

By: Shanker Trivedi

Shanker Trivedi — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:58:22 +0000

Thanks for an excellent analysis. However, I am a pretty sure that Gabriel and Telesoft are actively investing! Please can you cross-check these two companies status. Thanks

By: Dave McClure

Dave McClure — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:09:42 +0000

this is valuable information, but i hope your vetting process is a bit more thorough than just publishing a list and waiting for corrections to be crowdsourced… if you haven't already, i'd suggest checking in with VentureSource and VentureEconomics and see if you can cross-reference active firms that are still reporting deal data with any other sources you have (like NVCA / MoneyTree / TheFunded, etc). you might then pick a window of activity (perhaps 6-9 months? 1 year?) to see if any active deals have been reported, and list firms that have not reported an investment in the past 3-4 quarters on the suspect list. then double-check fundraising activity with those firms, to see when they raised their last fund, and whether they're involved in raising a new one.

anyway, not sure what your background process is on this, but to the extent you're punching a few VCs in the face here by listing them, i'd make sure they really are inactive… or you might also get punched back too

again the info is valuable, but accuracy (or at least a solid effort) counts for a lot.

By: scott

scott — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 20:54:45 +0000

You're missing a lot.

Cross reference it with TheFunded's

By: bernardlunn

bernardlunn — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:28:04 +0000

This is great research, thank you. I am sure there are more false positives in here, but making if public and getting the crowd to give more data is superb. This web 2.0 stuff works, huh! Eyeballing the yellow list, 2 that really surprised me a) Apax b) TA Associates. I have no knowledge of either, just surprised based on reputation.

By: Camille Ricketts

Camille Ricketts — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:04:28 +0000

Hi Rob,
Thanks for the comment. The data we received from the NVCA didn't date back that far, unfortunately, and we figured the biggest shift probably occurred in the early 2000s. As for downloading the current file, you can click on the link that says “Walking Dead” in small font under the DocStoc embed to download. Putting a fine point on the number of active VC firms might be a little difficult considering how much flux there is — and I don't think I have a comprehensive list yet, but I will poke around and try to find the answer for you.

Best,
Camille

By: ventureblogalist

ventureblogalist — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:50:35 +0000

Hi Camille,

Why didn't you also include years '96-99? Wouldn't that significantly grow this list.

Could you provide this in downloadable format? I can copy text but lose your formatting.

What do you peg active number of VC firms at today?

Thanks!
Rob

By: Camille Ricketts

Camille Ricketts — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 05:11:51 +0000

To respond to some of the comments, we're aware that there might be some errors in this list due to incomplete data for firms that recently raised funds. That being said, we're very interested in correcting the record.

The list has been corrected to reflect that Warburg Pincus is still alive and well. As for Gabriel Venture Partners, can you please send me a link referencing a more recently-raised fund? I was unable to find one.

The list does in fact include Vanguard. Worldview and Vantage didn't make the cut due to the particular parameters we used. While they might appear dormant today, they have both raised funds since 2001, which is what we focused on. But thanks for pointing out their limited activity!

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:31:59 +0000

Ugh, this can get you in a lot of trouble, which is why the trade publications have stayed away from reporting an all-encompassing list like this … you have to be absolutely sure, and you have to check with the firms as some investments may not have been disclosed, while other firms plan to or are raising new funds. There are definitely several on this list that are still active, like, as Dan notes, Warburg Pincus. Gabriel Venture Partners is another active firm. Expect some phone calls from VCs.

By: AForce10

AForce10 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:13:36 +0000

You missed Worldview. They merit an entire article on their own for their promises, hubris, performance (i.e., lack of). Suggest you interview their remaining partners (less and less by the quarter) and write something up.

Other noteworthy misses: Vantage, Vanguard.