Angel investors flee as seed and startup bubble begins to deflate

New data released today by the University of New Hampshire’s Center for Venture Research found that angel investors put much less money into startup deals during the first half of 2010 than they did in 2009, a direct refutation of the widely held notion in Silicon Valley that seed valuations have been rising.

The report saw both deal size and overall number of seed investments drop to levels not seen since the beginning of the decade.

So has the seed bubble finally burst? The new data suggests it may be well on its way to doing so.

Although a handful of closely watched deals have reaped major seed-round rewards — overshadowing more anemic growth elsewhere and giving rise to national news coverage of events like Angelgate – those few instances don’t tell the whole story, Jeffrey Sohl, director of the UNH Center for Venture Research at the Whittemore School of Business and Economics and an author of the report, told VentureBeat.

“Valuations for seed have certainly been falling according to our data, which make sense because everyone’s net worth is dropping and the economy has certainly grabbed a lot of net worth from angels’ portfolios,” said Sohl.

He added that while a number of “super angels” may have been in the spotlight for deal size and type over the last year, the vast majority of angels have been sitting on the sidelines as they wait for the overall economic climate to recover.

In the first half of 2010, 65 percent of membership in angel groups were “latent” angels, or individuals who have the necessary net worth but have not made an investment — an increase of non-participation from 2009 of 54 percent and 36 percent from 2008.

The study, “The Angel Investor Market in Q1Q2 2010: Where Have All the Seed Investors Gone?”, concluded that total investments in the first half of 2010 were $8.5 billion, a decrease of 6.5 percent during the first two quarters of 2009.

That lead to a 9 percent decline in total dollars as investors “lost their appetite” for seed funding.

“These data indicate that while angels remain committed to this investment class, they do so with a cautious approach to investing. Angels are committing fewer dollars in more deals, a result of the lower valuations,” said Sohl.

“Without a reversal of this trend in the near future, the dearth of seed and start-up capital may approach a critical stage, deepening the capital gap and impeding both new venture formation and job creation,” he said.

  • http://bradleyjoyce.com bradleyjoyce

    This would be much more interesting if the data were broken down by sector… ie, there is a big difference between internet/web startup angel investing and other markets/sectors of angel investing. As a whole, it's not surprising that numbers are falling, given the huge numbers of angel investors across all sectors.

  • http://500startups.com/ vbcontributor

    I really think this is inaccurate reporting… As one of the most active investors in the world in 2010, we certainly aren't seeing this in our market. if anything, both deal pace, deal size, and deal valuations are up across the board in 2010… and since I waa one of the most active angels last year while working for Founders Fund (via FF Angel), I'm pretty sure I've got a good pulse on the market… both in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. 500 Startups has also done over 20 deals outside the valley, in rest of US and globally.more likely the data may indicate that other non-valley markets have become more active, but that valuations in those territories may not be as high as in silicon valley, where generally the best / most contested startups are achieving higher valuations.

  • http://twitter.com/nanodome Nanodome Ltd

    I suspect that a lot of the effects described in the 3-page summary were secondary ones that arose from startups' limited access to bank funding since 2008. Simply put, restricted access to lending almost inevitably leads to two things…
    (1) earlier angel funding [because of lack of access to other funding options]; and
    (2) lower valuations [because the funding is happening earlier in startups' development curves]
    …neither of which seems to bear any relation to the conclusions touted here.

    Even development methodologies such as Lean Startups, bootstrapping and mechatronics (which all help make startup self-funding more possible) aren't yet making a huge impact on this issue: limited access to finance continues to cast a long shadow over the whole sector.

    Really, the limitation of statistical analysis is that it usually highlights ~correlation~, whereas journalists live in a world of ~causation~: which means that unless you've worked really ultra-hard to nail that elusive 'cause' jelly to the wall, eye-catching headlines such as “angel investors flee (etc)” are probably just plain wrong, sorry. :-(

  • inCaliber

    That is a refreshing view Dave. I'm in the middle, I have one client in the Valley market and another in the Film/Production market. It seems like most of the local camps (Austin, Silicon “Hills”) are still quite focused on startups and technology. It also seems like Angels will still invariably gravitate towards endeavors they can relate to, whether it be demographics, an area of interest, etc.. regardless of what the market says. I think in the end it falls to what is brought to the table. Anyone who falls into a belief that technology has reached it's max, or that everything on the creative side has already been done, will surely fall into a pit of self fulfilling (and defeating) prophecy, and they may never bring it. For me, a dismal statistical analysis accompanied by an extrapolation into impending doom is just a message to work harder, so even if I don't fully agree with the message, I can't deny appreciation of it.

  • SVCEORecruiter

    Good news!

    My experience is that Angels in 2010 are death to young companies. This is particularly true outside of Silicon Valley.

    Why?

    o Angels are impatient. A small win now is worth infinitely more than a big win later.
    o Angels are intrusive. They are often former operators themselves, prone to meddling in management.
    o Angels tap out early. The average angel contributes finds in $50K increments. The average start-up needs $10-15M minimum before it can be considered self-sufficient.
    o Angels need babysitting. $50K to an individual is a lot of money. They want their hands held.
    o Angels are often selfish. They know that allowing real money in diminishes their role AND their percentages. They often act to prevent real capital investments.
    o Angels are stingy. They ask for a lot of equity for a very small amount of money.

    Real angels are in heaven and are studied by the Vatican. Maybe that's where angels belong…

  • http://www.meebee.com JD

    Way too general to be useful. Needs to be broken down by sector. Web/Mobile is def on the up.

  • rileymcdermid

    interesting takes on both sides of this–I am sure the researchers would love to chat with you about what you're seeing…maybe that way we'll have a more holistic view of the sector next time they release a study?

  • rileymcdermid

    :)

  • inCaliber

    Thanks Riley! I'm not sure I'd claim to any grand expertise in the area, just some observations though working with some clients on startup endeavors. I guess my main point was in agreement to Dave's note, but not so much in pointing out any inaccuracies in the data itself. Data is good to see, and can be interpreted in many ways. But in the spirit of what I think Dave was trying to capture, a headline like this can be discouraging to those about to embark, even if it carries valuable data. I personally am party to 24+ patent applications for fortune 500 companies, most with me being the primary inventor bringing the concept. At the same time, I have many more concepts the drawing board in personal areas of interest, many of which would likely need an injection for R&D, etc.Does this headline and data discourage me? Nope! It just tells me a little about the present environment, and that whatever I bring to the Angel or VC table initially had better be very compelling.So if there's a primary message to send, it's “don't be discouraged”. Bring it to the table, no matter how dismal the outlook. Bring it hard, and confidently. If it's viable, the funding will come.

  • http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/30/sec-super-angels/ Good heavens! SEC could take aim at super angels | VentureBeat

    [...] Higher regulatory risk is just another reason for super angels to back off their torrid pace of investments, as higher startup valuations threaten to diminish their rewards. [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus