SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  32
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
TM


*nextwave  Ideas for private equity investors and entrepreneurs in the technology industry




                                                                                             Inside
                                                                                             Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly
                                                                                             known as the Web
                                                                                             Successfully shaping the future: MoneyTree™
                                                                                             FutureCentricSM companies 2005
         ISSUE 4: 2005




                                                                                             Q4 and Full-year




 *connectedthinking
TM

*nextwave
                                                                          Special topics

                                                                                    01
                                                                              Web 2.0:
                                         The Internet subset formerly known as the Web
       ISSUE 4: 2005




                                                                                    07
                                                                    MoneyTreeTM Report
                                                                Full-year and Q4 results

                                                                                    23
                                                       Successfully shaping the future:
                                          MoneyTreeTM FutureCentricSM companies 2005



                                                                      Quarterly features

                                                                                    20
                                                                      Regulatory buzz:
                           Issues regarding cheap stock and IPOs for private companies

                                                                                    24
                                                                      Industry currents:
                       Fast-growth CEOs take brighter outlook, but proceed with caution

                                                                                    26
                                                                        Voice of the VC
Message to the reader
A new year, a new beginning. So once again nextwave™ is looking to the
future—at the evolution of technology and the companies and entrepreneurs
driving that change.

Our lead article, “Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly known as the Web,”
explores the next wave of Web-related development driven by the rapid
consumer adoption of broadband and high-speed wireless connectivity. Our
second article, “Successfully shaping the future: MoneyTree™ FutureCentricSM
companies 2005,” showcases a few of the entrepreneurial companies who
are building ideas and products that are shaping our future.

Also included in this issue are the fourth-quarter and full-year results of the
PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTreeTM
Report; data provided by Thomson Financial. Venture capitalists matched
2004 by investing $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals in 2005. See pages 7 through 18
for full details.

Finally, look for our regular features throughout the issue—Industry currents,
Regulatory buzz, and Voice of the VC—providing brief updates, useful advice,
and expert opinions on both the VC and technology industries.

You have a vision. PricewaterhouseCoopers helps bring that vision to reality. We
hope you enjoy the Q4 2005 issue of nextwave™ and appreciate your comments
about our current issue or ideas for what you’d like to see covered in future
issues. Remember to visit us on the Web at www.pwcnextwave.com.




Tracy T. Lefteroff
Global Managing Partner
Private Equity and Venture Capital
tracy.t.lefteroff@us.pwc.com
Web 2.0:
The Internet subset formerly
known as the Web




There are many reasons to change    “We are clearly in a new wave of          media types—including text, audio,
a name—from technology updates      Web-related development that is           and video—as well as broad Web
and business model breakthroughs    being driven by the rapid consumer        adoption by both consumers and
to participation in the Federal     adoption of broadband and high-           enterprises.”
Witness Protection Program. In      speed wireless connectivity,” observes
the case of the Web, the tweak      Brad Feld, a managing director at         “For us as auditors, Web 2.0 could
to Web 2.0—first suggested           Mobius Venture Capital. “Google           present lots of exciting opportunities
by O’Reilly Media Inc. VP Dale      did a brilliant job of teaching a huge    and, hopefully, I think some of these
Dougherty—is meant to suggest       number of people that an acceptable       companies may have a better chance
                                    user interface to the Web was simply      of going public than companies in
that enough factors have changed
                                    a box on the screen that you typed        other technology sectors,” notes
since the late ‘90s to warrant
                                    text into and hit the search button;      Danny Wallace, partner in charge of
another look at what the Web        this resulted in a resurgence of online   PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Assurance
means to commerce, applications/    advertising and ecommerce that is         Venture-backed Start-up Practice in
services, and online communities.   helping the premises of many pre-         San Jose. “However, on the whole,
Has the process of how we gain      bubble entrepreneurs and investors        the VCs we speak with—regardless of
access to the Web, interact with    finally become realized. As optimism       sector—expect far fewer companies to
it, and deliver services evolved    returns to technology entrepreneurs       go public. Let’s say their expectation
enough to support more profitable,   and investors, we’ve seen an incredible   four or five years ago was that three
sustainable businesses?             new wave of innovation across all         or four out of ten companies in their




                                                                                           www.pwcnextwave.com     1
portfolios might be going public,            December 2004 co-founded Odeo—               tasking 19-year-old cousin interact
now it might be one. And, they factor        a creative way to record and share           with the Web. “You can assemble
that into their investment strategies.”      audio at no cost to the user—with            subcomponents to make applications
                                             his neighbor, Noah Glass. This time,         much more quickly than you used to
Such IPO estimates don’t seem to             the team chose to take VC and other          be able to do and that’s why you see
dampen the spirit of developers,             funding, which they describe with            things like Google releasing a map API
some of whom look to be acquired by          a flair in the OdeoBlog as follows:           and soon you have people mapping
Internet companies such as Google            “Leading the deal was Charles River          friends, mapping packages, mapping
and Yahoo!. Benchmark Capital                Ventures, featuring George Zachary. In       restaurants, mapping stores… It’s
General Partner Bill Gurley says             addition to Charles River’s involvement,     relatively quick to snap together
that this seems to be the case with          we included another small firm, Amicus        different data sources to create
interesting technology/features and          Ventures, and a substantial group of         composite applications on the Web.”
tool-based companies with exits under        individuals (both in number and weight)
$150 million. “If you’re not sure that       in the funding round: Mitch Kapor, Joe       Scott Rafer, who grew up in a tech
what you’re building has the essence         Kraus, Tim O’Reilly, Ron Conway, Josh        products household near Boston,
of a full, standalone business, there is a   Kopelman, Don Hutchinson, Dave Pell,         is aiming at the under-25 crowd of
huge incentive to bootstrap or take very     Mike Maples, Francesco Caio, Barbara         cell phone users as the new CEO
little money,” says Gurley. “Then, you       Poggiali, Emanuele Angelidis, James          of Wireless Ink. “There are all sorts
own 60-70 percent of something, sell it      Hong, and Ed Zschau.”                        of things we take for granted on the
for $20 million, and that’s real cash.”                                                   Web in terms of just being able to find
                                             Web 2.0 as environment                       people with the same interests we
Principal for New Business                                                                have,” says Rafer. “And, because of
Development at Google, Chris Sacca,          Hallmarks of the participatory,              the way mobile phone carriers have
encourages entrepreneurs to think            connected Web 2.0 environment                behaved there is no central index for
big: “Don’t assume we have thought           include: the rapid rise of blogging—         people in my area, or ways to find
about ‘X’ already. One of the most           posting to or writing in Web logs—           fans of the same bands and similar
entertaining things for me to do is read     since 2004 when people discovered            information. We’re simply going to
the blogs and see how much credit            that blog software wrote the HTML            string a bunch of existing mobile chat
folks give us for our alleged next moves     software for them; categorizing sites, à     system users together with a rational
in a particular area,” wrote Sacca in        la del.icio.us and Flickr, collaboratively   interface so that anywhere on the
his blog. “They presume we have a            using keywords referred to as “tags”;        planet you can find people in your
big honking master plan document             the mainstreaming of RSS (Really             city currently on their phones chatting
somewhere and have the next few              Simple Syndication), which started as        in this moment about a topic, or in a
years set forth step-by-step. Truth is,      a way to aggregate news feeds, spread        particular forum, or at this concert.”
we are constantly learning. We tend to       to use in job postings, commerce, and
launch early and launch often. However,      enterprise applications and will be part     David Sifry, founder and CEO of
this doesn’t mean we have it all figured      of Microsoft’s upcoming new releases;        Technorati, a search engine unique for
out. You have a killer idea for us? Are      and more engaging client functionality       its focus on people and time—instead
we missing the big picture? Can you          through the browser using AJAX,              of pages—considers one of the key
help us? Fire away. For instance, you        which uses existing technology like          changes of Web 2.0 over Web 1.0 to
guys who have been thinking about            JavaScript and XML.                          be evidenced by the change in the
VoIP for years and years, what would                                                      metaphor for how we think about the
you do if you were Google, and how           “Web 2.0 is really a user application-       Web, from a library, where a reference
can you work with us to get that done?”      driven revolution,” notes 27-year-old        librarian can help you find the sources
                                             MBA Charles Hudson, a product                you need, to an ongoing conversation.
Some “serial entrepreneurs” take both        manager at Iron Port Systems, San            “Google understood an additional
routes. For example, Evan Williams           Bruno, California, who marvels at the        dimension of the data,” explains Sifrey.
sold Blogger to Google in 2003 and in        difference in the way he and his multi-      “They understood it was not just about




2      Issue 4: 2005
“You cannot go into the same water twice.”
 Plato




understanding key words to figure out        or another event, instantly. “Instead
relevance, but [they could produce          of a 24-hour news cycle, the world is
better search results by] counting          measured in megahertz,” says Sifry.
hyperlinks to those pages. Google is
so good because it doesn’t rely on          Technorati is so good because you can
algorithms alone to feature what’s          search for a topic or name and find out
relevant; it uses people to understand      what’s been said about it in as little as
context and gray areas as well.”            a few seconds ago, by whom, and how
                                            many other people link to this site—
Sifry’s story seems to be another           which can offer a sense of authority
characteristic of Web 2.0: creating a       for the source. The company’s model
product because it satisfies a personal      is to generate revenue in three ways:
need for interacting with the Web. Sifry,   1. advertising, 2. fees for sponsored
an avid blogger who had headed up           links, and 3. syndication relationships,
three previous start-ups, wanted to         such as those with The Washington
know who was talking about him and          Post, Newsweek, International Herald
built Technorati over Thanksgiving in       Tribune, and other big media.
2002. He didn’t intend it as a business,
but he explains: “It turns out there are    Dean Petracca, Global Managing
a whole lot of other people out there       Partner of Software and
who basically felt the same way. It         Internet Industry Services at
just turned out to be wildly popular.”      PricewaterhouseCoopers, views the
Consider the impact when on-air             difference between Web 1.0 and Web
news organizations can view the buzz        2.0 as a before-and-after period in
about the story they’re broadcasting,       terms of technology, its adoption, and




                                                                                        www.pwcnextwave.com   3
“Web 2.0 is really a user application-driven revolution.”
 Charles Hudson, Iron Port Systems


                     how the two affect business practices,      product, which provides mass feed
                     particularly when it comes to greater       importing, management, and analysis
                     cooperation among companies.                to help publishers with multiple
                                                                 feeds better understand and engage
                     “I see increased recognition that           its audience. USA Today.com uses
                     not only does Web 2.0 encompass             FeedFoundry to manage and measure
                     technology, content, and connectivity,      RSS subscription growth for over 100
                     but also that companies specialize in       of its magazine and columnist feeds.
                     delivering value in each of those areas,
                     and in many cases, acknowledgement          In any environment, healthy
                     that no one company necessarily has         collaborative relationships hinge on a
                     all the talent it needs,” says Petracca.    mutually beneficial business model.
                     “For example, valuable content that         For example, Revver is a monetization
                     could be delivered over the Web             engine for video shorts being backed
                     more often might be provided by one         by Skype’s main investors—Draper,
                     company and managed or maintained           Bessemer, and DFJ. “Revver’s mission
                     by another.”                                in life is to help the publishers or
                                                                 owners or creators of video shorts
                     For example, Chicago-based privately        make money through advertising,” says
                     held Feedburner enables commercial          Andreas Stavropoulous, managing
                     publishers, podcasters (downloadable        director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson. “So,
                     audio file makers inspired by the            they publish their video on Revver, set
                     iPod), and bloggers to reach millions       a tag with it, and no matter where it
                     of subscribers in more than 190             appears as long as someone clicks
                     countries using Rich Site Summary           on an ad delivered somewhere when
                     (RSS) technology.                           it plays you get a big piece [of the
                                                                 revenue]. Figuring out the business
                     “When we started FeedBurner in 2003,        model—which is making money based
                     we saw the Web evolving from a tool         either on advertising, subscriptions,
                     for simple browsing to more intention-      or transactions—in the Web 2.0
                     based searching to now allowing             distributed or syndicated world is
                     consumers to subscribe to any content       no small task,” he adds. “It’s much
                     and read, listen to, or watch it wherever   harder to do when you’re talking about
                     they want, when they are ready to do        a world of syndication, where your
                     so,” says Chicago-based FeedBurner          content at point A gets consumed
                     CEO, Dick Costolo. “It was clear to us      at point B, which may or may not
                     that every network-aware device would       be connected, may be intermittently
                     soon provide a mechanism to consume         connected, and measured differently.”
                     all manner of content and that the
                     standard of distribution would be RSS.      “There are many companies that
                     We had a simple plan to be the people       are taking a longer term view
                     who help publishers navigate the            and trying to build a sustainable
                     complexities of measuring subscriber        standalone business,” observes
                     reach, maximizing subscription growth,      PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Wallace.
                     and making money from content in            “It’s hard to do that on your own
                     syndication, and that has remained          and often it results in partnering up
                     our goal.” On January 24, Feedburner        with another company, particularly a
                     announced its new FeedFoundry               local company if you are considering




4   Issue 4: 2005
venturing into emerging international        hard technology. That has changed.         By September 2005, Salesforce.com
markets. This is true for large and small    Now, every VC firm on Sand Hill             had invested $50 million to rebuild its
companies alike. Consider Yahoo! for         Road is rushing to hire someone to         architecture, hardware, and two data
example and their recent deal with           run their Internet consumer practice.      centers—and created an on-demand
Alibaba in China, reportedly valued          Because if you look over the past five      operating system and platform
at $4 billion. At the other end of the       years, whether it’s Google or Skype        called AppExchange from which
spectrum you have a company like             or Shopping.com, all these deals are       Salesforce.com subscribers could
Mforma, a venture-backed company             Internet deals. They had much bigger       choose to test-drive and use business
that provides mobile entertainment           exits than other deals. I think the top    applications from independent
content to leading wireless                  five exits of the past seven years are      vendors, including Adobe PDF,
operators globally. They invested            all consumer Internet: Google, eBay,       Business Objects’ Crystal Reports,
in and partnered with two content            Yahoo!, Expedia, Amazon. Now they’re       and Skype for free Voice Over
development companies in China               all back. What does that mean? From a      Internet Provider (VoIP) conference
to capitalize on that market’s huge          supply/demand perspective it’s horrible    calls. The company also created a
potential. Something they could simply       for investors. You went from having        sandbox application for developers
not have accomplished alone. In China,       four or five guys to a multiple order       and customers to share and explore
there are 100 million Internet users and     of magnitude—now all of a sudden           applications.
360 million mobile users, giving them        there have been five comparison
the highest mobile phone to Internet         shopping deals funded after the first       “For the vendors, getting greater
user ratio and twice as many phone           three have all been sold—which is a        revenues over time offers a more
users as in the US.”                         bizarre thing.                             predictable model in terms of
                                                                                        forecasting what those revenues might
Remember the consumer                        “So, I find it more of a time to be         be,” says Petracca. “It also gives
market?                                      cautious rather than opportunistic,”       companies a better way to reach the
                                             concludes Gurley. “Not because of the      small business marketplace because
Not everyone will tell you how they          opportunity side, which is improving,      of the user’s lower entry cost.”
really feel about Internet investing quite   but it’s not improving at the rate at
the way Gurley can: “Stocks are doing        which the supply side of venture capital   “If you go back as far as ’97-’98
well, there have been some Internet          has grown.”                                people started talking about software
IPOs and M&A exits and companies                                                        as a service and for various reasons,
are making profits—nice profits,”              Beyond the browser                         including the bust, that theory didn’t
Gurley intones. Here’s the other shoe.                                                  live up to expectations as much as
The ‘I told you so’:                         Online platforms are very Web 2.0          it should have,” says Bill Gurley,
                                             and at the heart of supporting the         general partner, Benchmark Capital.
“I think the venture industry broadly        application service provider (ASP)         “Fast forward to today and look at the
ran away from consumer Internet              business model. Consider bubble-           success of Salesforce.com and others
when the bubble burst, because when          survivor Salesforce.com, which was         like Websense and Websidestory—
the bubble burst consumer Internet           designed from scratch to run over the      that clearly is a business model that
went first—it ended up being that             Internet. Back in 2000 nextwave spoke      Wall Street loves. The multiples are
telecom equipment was three times            with Salesforce.com’s co-founder,          incredibly high.”
the whole consumer Internet—but              chairman, and CEO, Marc Benioff,
consumer Internet always had a taint         and included his announcement that         Like Microsoft and IBM have done with
to it. Dot-com became a euphemism            his pure-play sales-force automation       independent software vendors, the
for bad business. And so many VCs            software company planned “to offer         Salesforce platform model incorporates
ran away—I think there were four or          a complete customer relationship           selected application service vendors
five of us that kept after consumer           management environment, including          more tightly into its application and
Internet. They were going back to            sales-force automation, customer           infrastructure ecosystem in an on-
our core, which was what they call           support, and marketing services.”          demand (or SaaS) framework.




                                                                                                     www.pwcnextwave.com          5
“Reaching customers was the disruptive
                                                  force that drove the first Internet boom.”
                                                  Tim O’Brien, Microsoft
Microsoft plans to hold a Web                    for two years now,” says Costolo.           and other devices; it’s about how to
developer and designer conference                “We are absolutely of the belief that       make that information most relevant to
in March called MIX ’06 (www.mix06.              publishers have to syndicate their          users. We have a clear path forward as
com) to outline the company’s current            content, distribute it, and attach          Microsoft embraces RSS.”
and future investments in Web platform           monetization mechanisms to it that
technologies. O’Reilly Media Inc.                assume it will be consumed far away         Can you be too thin or too rich?
President and CEO, Tim O’Reilly, who             from the originating site or source. It’s
published the 16-page piece, “What is            just the beginning of innovations that      In the Web 2.0 environment, you’ll
Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business            will offer publishers and subscribers       be hearing a lot about the notion that
Models for the Next Generation of                the option of becoming untethered           given the rich interactivity and all the
Software,” on his company’s Web site             from proprietary systems.”                  bandwidth out there all you need is a
in September, will have a dialogue with                                                      browser and a “thin client,” a server
Bill Gates at MIX ’06.                           J.B. Holston, CEO of Newsgator.com,         without any real software on it.
                                                 an early RSS technology adopter and
“Microsoft had made a number                     rapid innovator, says he really hopes       “That’s not true,” says O’Brien. “It’s not
of investments in Web tools and                  Microsoft’s upcoming IE 7 and Vista         an either/or world. Reaching customers
technologies long before Web 2.0                 releases do speed up RSS adoption           was the disruptive force that drove the
started making these headlines,”                 exponentially. “MS has been a great         first Internet boom,” he explains. “Now,
says Tim O’Brien, group manager of               ‘partner’ to us, in a ton of ways; one of   user experience on the client becomes
Platform Strategy for Microsoft. “We             which has been to share their roadmap       the unique differentiator. Internet reach
announced enhanced tools for Web                 openly. We build everything we do on        has become a commodity,” he asserts,
development and tools for graphic                Microsoft technologies and, as a result,    noting the proliferation of desk bars,
design at our Professional Developers’           they’ve been very open with us as we        tool bars, task bars, sidebars, and
Conference this past September. Our              build our company because it’s good         other client-side pieces of technology.
investments on the services side, even           for them to have companies using their      “Skype is a Win32 application that
the more recent ones announced in                technology do well,” says Holston, who      runs on the client. The Google toolbar
November—Windows Live and Office                  is no stranger to navigating corporate      is an application that runs on the
Live—are platform plays.” When                   networks. Holston started Yahoo!            client. Most of what Google and
Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Vista            Europe, the joint venture between           Yahoo! announced at the Computer
roll-out this year, O’Brien says: “The           Yahoo! and Ziff Davis, which he was         Electronics Show was all client-side
RSS capabilities in [these products]             running in Europe at the time. “If you’re   technologies that run on the PC. I think
are going to make what is a Web 2.0              a start-up, the big thing you have to       it’s interesting that Salesforce would
technology still in quasi-early stage            do when you are potentially competing       have a Microsoft Outlook edition of
of adoption available to hundreds of             in Microsoft space is to just innovate      their product,” he remarks, alluding to
millions of people… If you’re a VC               faster than they do… The best position      Salesforce.com’s long-time campaign
looking at an early-stage company who            you can be in is if you’ve got a close      for The End of Software.
is saying, ‘I pull traffic into my site; I sell   relationship with them so you can
ads; and I’ve got this really cool RSS           know where they’re going, but you           The emphasis on client experience
capability’… If people stop visiting that        still have to cycle your products much      is apparent as Microsoft expands its
site because they can just subscribe to          more quickly than they can. That’s our      outreach from independent, high-level
what they need, they’ve got a business           competitive advantage. We’re always         software developers to include front-
model issue to think through.”                   going to be a higher end, richer way to     end graphics designers and illustrators
                                                 present the most relevant text, audio,      while fine-tuning its new Expression
Keeping just the right distance ahead            and video to users,” he explains.           Interactive Designer and Expression
of democratization is how forward-                                                           Graphic Designer development
looking companies, like FeedBurner,              “It’s not just a question of how to         tools for Web and Windows design.
must think. “FeedBurner has been                 aggregate, serve up, and synchronize        Microsoft’s Mix ’06 conference in
innovating on ad insertion into feeds            feeds over mobile phones, computers,        March will address optimizing the
                                                                                             continues on page 19




6      Issue 4: 2005
This special report, covering 2004 to 2005, provides
                             detailed results of Q4 2005, summary findings for
                             full-year 2005, and an additional year of trends. More
                             detailed results, including an electronic version of this
                             report, can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at
                             www.pwcmoneytree.com.
                             Directory
                             Tracy T. Lefteroff                                                                     Kirk Walden
                             tracy.t.lefteroff@us.pwc.com                                                           kirk.walden@us.pwc.com




                             Total equity investments into venture-backed companies
                             Investments in the fourth quarter of 2005 totaled $5.1                                 marked the first increase in venture capital investing
                             billion in 709 deals, down slightly from $5.4 billion in Q3                            after three years of consecutive declines. Funding for
                             2005, but well within the range of investment levels seen                              later stage companies rose markedly in 2005 to $9.7
                             over the past 14 quarters.                                                             billion, while the number of companies getting venture
                                                                                                                    capital for the first time increased to 901, continuing
                             In 2005, venture capitalists matched 2004 by investing                                 a steady year-over-year rise. Both measures were
                             $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals. Full-year 2004’s $21.6 billion                           four-year highs.


                                       2000                         2001                        2002                            2003                           2004                             2005
                              Q1      Q2    Q3       Q4    Q1      Q2    Q3      Q4      Q1   Q2      Q3     Q4      Q1        Q2      Q3     Q4     Q1       Q2     Q3      Q4       Q1      Q2     Q3       Q4
                        30
                        29   28.078
                        28
                        27                    26.312
                        26         27.910
                        25
                        24
                        23
                        22                  22.400
                        21
                        20
                        19
        $ in billions




                        18
                        17
                        16
                        15
                        14
                        13                                         11.313
                        12                                12.970
                        11
                        10
                         9                                                      8.056
                         8
                         7                                              8.365                 5.999                                                          6.148                           6.164
                                                                                                                            4.932            5.543                           5.676                           5.084
                         6                                                            6.699                 4.435
                         5
                         4                                                                                                                           5.105                           4.988           5.445
                                                                                                    4.565           4.342            4.768                           4.706
                         3
                         2
                         1
                         0
                             2,085 2,083 1,912 1,729 1,274 1,218        997      967    819   840     685    713    684        723     699    759    680      826     662     798     704    784      742    709

                                                                                                            total # of deals




*connectedthinking
Investments by industry
                                                                    2004 to 2005
                                                                    The Life Sciences sector (Biotechnology and Medical Devices industries, together) inched up to a five-year
                                                                    high in 2005 with $6.0 billion in 608 deals compared to $5.8 billion in 589 deals in 2004. Software investments
                                                                    slipped 10% in 2005 to $4.7 billion in 840 deals, yet easily held its position as the largest single industry
                                                                    category for the year, capturing 22% of total dollars and 29% of all deals. The Networking industry continued
                                                                    its slide, ending at $1.4 billion in 2005, an eight-year low point. The Telecommunications industry’s Wireless
                                                                    subcategory has become a hot spot. For full-year 2005, 152 wireless-related companies received $1.3 billion,
                                                                    a 24% increase over 2004’s $1.1 billion. This increase pushed the Telecommunications category to a three-
                                                                    year high of $2.1 billion in 2005.


                                                                              2005

                                                                              2004

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $ in millions
                                                                    0                             500                       1,000                        1,500                           2,000                      2,500
                                                             # of
                                                            deals
                                                             840                                                                                                                                                             4,703.6
                                               Software
                                                             886                                                                                                                                                             5,246.3

                                                             357                                                                                                                                                             3,861.6
                                        Biotechnology
                                                             340                                                                                                                                                             4,147.0

                                                             247                                                                                                                                    2,129.2
                                  Telecommunications
                                                             236                                                                                                                          1,946.8

                                                             251                                                                                                                                    2,114.1
                     Medical Devices and Equipment
                                                             249                                                                                                           1,705.5

                                                             210                                                                                                               1,778.2
                                      Semiconductors
                                                             239                                                                                                                                 2,077.8

                                                             157                                                                                       1,402.1
                          Networking and Equipment
                                                             183                                                                                                 1,554.3

                                                             149                                                            945.1
                            Media and Entertainment
                                                             116                                                          900.2

                                                             130                                                          921.1
                                            IT Services
                                                             131                                          612.6

                                                             123                                                  740.5
                                      Industrial/Energy
                                                             131                                             646.6

                                                              56                                             643.6
                                    Financial Services
                                                              70                                435.2

                                                              89                                     515.4
                     Business Products and Services
                                                              80                                  461.0

                                                              59                                  467.5
                          Computers and Peripherals
                                                              69                                          592.7

                                                              67                                436.8
                                  Healthcare Services
                                                              68                                420.6

                                                              83                             387.4
                          Electronics/Instrumentation
                                                              65                             383.0

                                                              73                             362.0
                   Consumer Products and Services             60                        297.2

                                                              43                        270.5
                                 Retailing/Distribution       40                     207.4

                                                                5       1.5
                                    Undisclosed/Other          3        1.1

                                                        2,939                                                                                                                                                                21,680.0
                                            Grand Total 2,966
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             21,635.3


                                                                    0                            500                        1,000                         1,500                          2,000                       2,500
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     $ in millions




                                                                    Definitions of the industry categories can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at www.pwcmoneytree.com.




Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable
sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time.
©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).




8            Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report
Investments by industry
                                                                    Q4 2004, Q3 2005, Q4 2005
                                                                    The Life Sciences sector (Biotechnology and Medical Devices industries, together) continued its
                                                                    dominance in Q4 2005. Investments in the sector totaled $1.7 billion or one-third of all venture
                                                                    capital invested during the quarter. This represents the largest portion of overall investing the
                                                                    sector has attracted in a single quarter. Half of the top ten industries experienced an increase
                                                                    in financing from the prior quarter. The Industrial/Energy, Business Products/Services, and IT
                                                                    Services industries experienced the largest gains in the fourth quarter, up modestly from Q3 2005.



                                                                              Q4 05

                                                                              Q3 05

                                                                              Q4 04

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          $ in millions
                                                                    0                            100                         200             300                      400                       500                      600
                                                             # of
                                                            deals
                                                              95                                                                                                                                                                1,068.8
                                         Biotechnology        94                                                                                                                                                                1,024.2
                                                             101                                                                                                                                                                1,266.1
                                                             192                                                                                                                                                                1,036.6
                                                Software     201                                                                                                                                                                1,133.7
                                                             238                                                                                                                                                                1,407.5
                                                              65                                                                                                                                                            613.0
                      Medical Devices and Equipment           69                                                                                                                                                            604.0
                                                              65                                                                                                                     445.5
                                                              62                                                                                                                                      517.1
                                   Telecommunications         68                                                                                                                                                       586.9
                                                              55                                                                                                             413.4
                                                              46                                                                                                               425.1
                                       Semiconductors         56                                                                                                                                          531.7
                                                              71                                                                                                                                                     576.1
                                                              27                                                                  210.3
                                             IT Services      34                                                              195.5
                                                              42                                                      168.7
                                                              37                                                              194.8
                             Media and Entertainment          37                                                                             197.5
                                                              31                                                                             294.1
                                                              29                                                             188.8
                           Networking and Equipment           33                                                                                            354.0
                                                              41                                                                            283.9
                                                              35                                                       186.0
                                       Industrial/Energy      33                                                 154.5
                                                              37                                                   168.7
                                                              27                                           133.5
                      Business Products and Services          24                                         122.0
                                                              13                31.3
                                                              14                                         126.7
                           Computers and Peripherals          12                         66.1
                                                              17                                 93.5
                                                              20                                   105.2
                           Electronics/Instrumentation        19                                  96.1
                                                              15                                  95.4
                                                              17                                     102.5
                                   Healthcare Services        16                          67.5
                                                              16                                  97.2
                                                              18                              80.2
                    Consumer Products and Services            18                                 97.6
                                                              18                                 97.2
                                                              12                       51.3
                                     Financial Services       13                              81.7
                                                              25                                                     164.7
                                                              11                  42.7
                                  Retailing/Distribution      14                                             131.8
                                                              11                          72.0
                                                                2       1.5
                                     Undisclosed/Other          1       0.0
                                                                2       0.6
                                                             709                                                                                                                                                                5,084.1
                                             Grand Total     742                                                                                                                                                                5,444.7
                                                             798                                                                                                                                                                5,675.7


                                                                    0                            100                         200             300                       400                      500                      600
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         $ in millions




                                                                    Definitions of the industry categories can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at www.pwcmoneytree.com.




Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable
sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time.
©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).




                                                                                                                                                                                             www.pwcmoneytree.com                            9
Investments by region
                                                                     2004 to 2005
                                                                     Of the ten regions garnering the largest amounts of venture capital in 2005, three experienced double-digit
                                                                     increases in investing over the prior year. LA/Orange County chalked up a 58% increase in investment levels
                                                                     from 2004, while the Midwest and NY Metro regions both attracted 17% and 12% more dollars, respectively,
                                                                     than in the prior year. During 2005, Silicon Valley dominated the attention of investors as 35% of all US
                                                                     venture capital was invested in the region. Taken together, the top three regions—Silicon Valley, New England,
                                                                     and NY Metro—accounted for 55% of the dollars invested and 49% of the deals reported in 2005.




                                                                            2005

                                                                            2004

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 $ in millions
                                                                     0                                    500                                        1,000                               1,500                                   2,000
                                                              # of
                                                             deals
                                                             895                                                                                                                                                                            7,622.8
                                        Silicon Valley
                                                             913                                                                                                                                                                            7,808.0

                                                             385                                                                                                                                                                            2,618.4
                                        New England
                                                             395                                                                                                                                                                            3,074.4

                                                             164                                                                                                                                           1,690.4
                                            NY Metro
                                                             204                                                                                                                            1,504.7

                                                             176                                                                                                                          1,484.0
                                  LA/Orange County
                                                             138                                                                                937.9

                                                             202                                                                                                        1,215.3
                                            Southeast
                                                             221                                                                                                          1,259.5

                                                             158                                                                                             1,068.9
                                                 Texas
                                                             157                                                                                              1,099.0

                                                             122                                                                                        1,032.8
                                           San Diego
                                                             122                                                                                                        1,212.3

                                                             150                                                                              913.8
                                            Northwest
                                                             146                                                                                     977.8

                                                             184                                                                             885.2
                                       DC/Metroplex
                                                             165                                                                                 961.6

                                                             144                                                                     773.5
                                              Midwest
                                                             151                                                         660.0

                                                               91                                                            687.8
                                  Philadelphia Metro
                                                               95                                                            689.2

                                                               75                                                    611.7
                                             Colorado
                                                               68                                      413.3

                                                               79                                                   590.3
                                           Southwest
                                                               52                              331.1

                                                               60                            314.0
                                        North Central
                                                               68                                       425.0

                                                               15               79.9
                                  Sacramento/N.Cal
                                                                8          47.9

                                                               30           58.9
                                          Upstate NY
                                                               29                106.3

                                                                5        17.0
                                            AK/HI/PR
                                                                5        15.1

                                                                4        15.1
                                        South Central
                                                               24                110.5

                                                                0 0.0
                                             Other US
                                                                5 1.5

                                                           2,939                                                                                                                                                                            21,680.0
                                          Grand Total
                                                           2,966                                                                                                                                                                            21,635.3


                                                                     0                                    500                                        1,000                               1,500                                   2,000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 $ in millions



Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable
sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time.
©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).




10           Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report
Investments by region
                                                                   Q4 2004, Q3 2005, Q4 2005
                                                                   Seven of the ten largest regions in Q4 2005 recorded an increase in investing over the prior quarter.
                                                                   Investment levels in Texas—capturing $296 million—increased by 43% while San Diego attracted 22% more
                                                                   than Q3 2005. Taken together, the top three regions in Q4 2005—Silicon Valley, New England, and Texas—
                                                                   accounted for 55% of the dollars invested and 50% of the deals reported.




                                                                             Q4 05

                                                                             Q3 05

                                                                             Q4 04

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 $ in millions
                                                                   0                             100                             200                               300                           400                             500
                                                            # of
                                                           deals
                                                             222                                                                                                                                                                            1,779.0
                                          Silicon Valley     230                                                                                                                                                                            2,110.5
                                                             248                                                                                                                                                                            1,951.8
                                                              93                                                                                                                                                                             702.6
                                          New England         93                                                                                                                                                                             622.3
                                                             109                                                                                                                                                                             806.1
                                                              42                                                                                                    295.5
                                                  Texas       37                                                                       207.0
                                                              41                                                                                           271.4
                                                              37                                                                                                286.5
                                              NY Metro        43                                                                                              283.2
                                                              49                                                                                          265.2
                                                              34                                                                                            278.2
                                    LA/Orange County          47                                                                                                                       360.4
                                                              40                                                                                                     299.4
                                                              39                                                                                          270.7
                                             Northwest        35                                                                                  241.3
                                                              34                                                              181.7
                                                              31                                                                                          266.7
                                             San Diego        36                                                                         219.2
                                                              40                                                                                                                    351.8
                                                              40                                                                                235.3
                                             Southeast        62                                                                                                                                                   448.8
                                                              61                                                                                                                                               433.3
                                                              51                                                                           225.0
                                         DC/Metroplex         40                                                                       209.3
                                                              46                                                                                                                                       409.3
                                                              23                                                           178.0
                                    Philadelphia Metro        17                                                        164.0
                                                              20                                              124.7
                                                              33                                                            176.1
                                               Midwest        36                                               130.7
                                                              39                                                                               225.9
                                                              19                                           121.0
                                             Southwest        19                                                              181.8
                                                               9                               83.1
                                                              17                                           119.7
                                          North Central       11                        59.2
                                                              17                                      105.3
                                                              16                                          115.3
                                              Colorado        21                                                            175.1
                                                              21                                   93.5
                                                               2          14.0
                                    Sacramento/N.Cal           3         9.2
                                                               3           16.1
                                                               1         10.2
                                              AK/HI/PR         1        3.8
                                                               2        5.6
                                                               8         8.6
                                            Upstate NY        10           17.9
                                                               6         7.9
                                                               1       1.5
                                         South Central         1       1.0
                                                              10                     43.1
                                                               0 0.0
                                              Other US         0 0.0
                                                               3 0.4
                                                             709                                                                                                                                                                            5,084.1
                                            Grand Total      742                                                                                                                                                                            5,444.7
                                                             798                                                                                                                                                                            5,675.7

                                                                   0                             100                             200                               300                           400                             500
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 $ in millions



Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable
sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time.
©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).




                                                                                                                                                                                          www.pwcmoneytree.com                                   11
Investments by state
                                                                      2004 to 2005


                                                                                2005

                                                                                2004

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   $ in millions
                                                                      0                                                 250                                         500                           750                              1,000
                                                               # of
                                                              deals
                                                           1,208                                                                                                                                                                            10,219.5
                                                California 1,181                                                                                                                                                                            10,006.2
                                                              331                                                                                                                                                                            2,352.1
                                          Massachusetts       348                                                                                                                                                                            2,811.9
                                                              158                                                                                                                                                                            1,068.9
                                                    Texas     157                                                                                                                                                                            1,099.0
                                                              124                                                                                                                                                                     1,042.2
                                               New York       147                                                                                                                                 726.5
                                                               77                                                                                                                                          823.1
                                             New Jersey        86                                                                                                                                                                959.3
                                                              114                                                                                                                                  736.3
                                             Washington       114                                                                                                                                           825.2
                                                               75                                                                                                                         611.7
                                                Colorado       68                                                                                        413.3
                                                               56                                                                                                         507.5
                                          North Carolina                                                                                315.5
                                                               53
                                                               74                                                                                                  469.5
                                            Pennsylvania                                                                                                                          560.9
                                                               91
                                                               97                                                                                               442.6
                                                Maryland                                                                                                                            580.8
                                                               84
                                                               74                                                                                       401.7
                                                  Virginia                                                                            300.1
                                                               71
                                                               55                                                                                361.2
                                                  Florida                                                                               318.1
                                                               58
                                                               60                                                             261.7
                                                 Georgia                                                                                                                    524.4
                                                               76
                                                               30                                                          249.1
                                                     Utah                                                          197.9
                                                               28
                                                               51                                                       241.1
                                                   Illinois                                                           223.5
                                                               52
                                                               44                                                      227.9
                                               Minnesota                                                                                        353.5
                                                               50
                                                               29                                               194.0
                                             Connecticut                                                       180.4
                                                               32
                                                               26                                        148.0
                                                  Arizona                                69.7
                                                               10
                                                               28                                      138.1
                                                  Oregon                                                 148.7
                                                               29
                                                               31                                  119.3
                                                     Ohio                               57.0
                                                               31
                                                               12                                 117.4
                                                 Missouri                        31.0
                                                               11
                                                               26                                112.6
                                         New Hampshire                                                     154.8
                                                               26
                                                                 7                              104.9
                                                 Nevada                                39.5
                                                                 6
                                                               10                            95.6
                                                  Indiana                                67.3
                                                                9
                                                               21                              89.0
                                                Michigan                                               131.8
                                                               19
                                                               16                              88.4
                                            New Mexico                          24.0
                                                                8
                                                               13                         77.1
                                            Rhode Island                           45.4
                                                                7
                                                               12                        67.9
                                               Wisconsin                                        57.1
                                                               10
                                                               23                        65.6
                                              Tennessee                                    80.5
                                                               23
                                                                 5               35.2
                                                 Vermont                  5.1
                                                                 4
                                                               52                                                    211.0
                                      Undisclosed/Other                                                                                   327.1
                                                               77
                                                         2,939                                                                                                                                                                              21,680.0
                                             Grand Total                                                                                                                                                                                    21,635.3
                                                         2,966


                                                                      0                                                 250                                         500                           750                               1,000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    $ in millions




Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable
sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time.
©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US).




12           Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405
Nextwave q405

Contenu connexe

Tendances

IBM Introduction to Social Business
IBM Introduction to Social BusinessIBM Introduction to Social Business
IBM Introduction to Social Businessadigaskell
 
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012Linda Gridley
 
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consulting
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consultingDigital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consulting
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consultingRick Bouter
 
Digital transformation review_7
Digital transformation review_7Digital transformation review_7
Digital transformation review_7Erik Lodenstein
 
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...masjo
 
Customer As Strategy
Customer As StrategyCustomer As Strategy
Customer As StrategyHelge Tennø
 
Deloitte Review - Silence the Noise
Deloitte Review - Silence the NoiseDeloitte Review - Silence the Noise
Deloitte Review - Silence the NoiseMartin Nikel
 
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOK
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOKBJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOK
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOKBrian Dooley
 
Connecting the Edges
Connecting the EdgesConnecting the Edges
Connecting the Edgesadigaskell
 
It enabled innovation cisco live latam, 20121108
It enabled innovation   cisco live latam, 20121108It enabled innovation   cisco live latam, 20121108
It enabled innovation cisco live latam, 20121108Jozek Gruskovnjak
 
Frans van der reep about analogue life in a digital world
Frans van der reep   about analogue life in a digital worldFrans van der reep   about analogue life in a digital world
Frans van der reep about analogue life in a digital worldmasjo
 
Better Acquisitions
Better AcquisitionsBetter Acquisitions
Better AcquisitionsBornRAD
 
SLA Name Change - A View From Germany
SLA Name Change - A View From GermanySLA Name Change - A View From Germany
SLA Name Change - A View From GermanyMichael Fanning
 
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?Ross Breadmore
 
Slash - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...
Slash  - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...Slash  - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...
Slash - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...Slash
 
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2Seed funds study ppt presentation en2
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2Rostyslav LUKACH
 
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...masjo
 
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?Scott Tominaga
 

Tendances (20)

IBM Introduction to Social Business
IBM Introduction to Social BusinessIBM Introduction to Social Business
IBM Introduction to Social Business
 
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012
Gridley's Guide to Digital NY -- January 2012
 
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consulting
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consultingDigital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consulting
Digital transformation review_7 - dtr 7 - capgemini consulting
 
Digital transformation review_7
Digital transformation review_7Digital transformation review_7
Digital transformation review_7
 
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...
Social media and social companies (2010). BPtrends.com and reprinted in IT Ma...
 
Customer As Strategy
Customer As StrategyCustomer As Strategy
Customer As Strategy
 
Deloitte Review - Silence the Noise
Deloitte Review - Silence the NoiseDeloitte Review - Silence the Noise
Deloitte Review - Silence the Noise
 
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOK
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOKBJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOK
BJ Dooley's IT Toons QUOTEBOOK
 
Connecting the Edges
Connecting the EdgesConnecting the Edges
Connecting the Edges
 
It enabled innovation cisco live latam, 20121108
It enabled innovation   cisco live latam, 20121108It enabled innovation   cisco live latam, 20121108
It enabled innovation cisco live latam, 20121108
 
Frans van der reep about analogue life in a digital world
Frans van der reep   about analogue life in a digital worldFrans van der reep   about analogue life in a digital world
Frans van der reep about analogue life in a digital world
 
Better Acquisitions
Better AcquisitionsBetter Acquisitions
Better Acquisitions
 
SLA Name Change - A View From Germany
SLA Name Change - A View From GermanySLA Name Change - A View From Germany
SLA Name Change - A View From Germany
 
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?
Social business - what if businesses couldn't lie?
 
Inside QQ
Inside QQInside QQ
Inside QQ
 
Slash - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...
Slash  - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...Slash  - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...
Slash - the future is faster than you think (tech trends, new models and leg...
 
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2Seed funds study ppt presentation en2
Seed funds study ppt presentation en2
 
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...
From schedule push to reality pull (2005). Published in European Retail Diges...
 
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?
What Is The Future Of Venture Capital Post-Crisis?
 
CHINA PLUS web
CHINA PLUS webCHINA PLUS web
CHINA PLUS web
 

En vedette

Green.why not creds june 2012
Green.why not creds   june 2012Green.why not creds   june 2012
Green.why not creds june 2012green whynot
 
برنامج المصنع 1
برنامج المصنع 1برنامج المصنع 1
برنامج المصنع 1sabrymuhamad
 
Think Aloud
Think AloudThink Aloud
Think Alouddkeys304
 
свадьбы турандот 1
свадьбы турандот 1свадьбы турандот 1
свадьбы турандот 1Yarovitskaya
 
Green.why not creds jan 2012
Green.why not creds   jan 2012Green.why not creds   jan 2012
Green.why not creds jan 2012green whynot
 
Leadership Excellence Course | Brochure
Leadership Excellence Course | BrochureLeadership Excellence Course | Brochure
Leadership Excellence Course | Brochurechoinque
 
Ujian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKUjian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKmelindamion
 
Ujian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKUjian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKmelindamion
 

En vedette (8)

Green.why not creds june 2012
Green.why not creds   june 2012Green.why not creds   june 2012
Green.why not creds june 2012
 
برنامج المصنع 1
برنامج المصنع 1برنامج المصنع 1
برنامج المصنع 1
 
Think Aloud
Think AloudThink Aloud
Think Aloud
 
свадьбы турандот 1
свадьбы турандот 1свадьбы турандот 1
свадьбы турандот 1
 
Green.why not creds jan 2012
Green.why not creds   jan 2012Green.why not creds   jan 2012
Green.why not creds jan 2012
 
Leadership Excellence Course | Brochure
Leadership Excellence Course | BrochureLeadership Excellence Course | Brochure
Leadership Excellence Course | Brochure
 
Ujian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKUjian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIK
 
Ujian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIKUjian Praktek TIK
Ujian Praktek TIK
 

Similaire à Nextwave q405

The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystem
The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystemThe cloud changing_the_business_ecosystem
The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystemSantiago Toribio Ayuga
 
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)Venture51
 
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media Companies
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media CompaniesChallenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media Companies
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media CompaniesJose Claudio Terra
 
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10beebop media
 
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlines
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlinesArchitecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlines
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlinesIsrael Blechman
 
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3ADTELLIGENCE GmbH
 
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B TechIDG Connect
 
Making sense of web 2.0
Making sense of web 2.0Making sense of web 2.0
Making sense of web 2.0Larry Collett
 
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial Services
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial ServicesNext-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial Services
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial ServicesBernard Marr
 
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcamp
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcampWeb Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcamp
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcampdelhibloggers
 
9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdfHananPugc
 
9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdfHananPugc
 
IIoT Talent Implications
IIoT Talent ImplicationsIIoT Talent Implications
IIoT Talent ImplicationsIan Collyer
 
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018Match-Maker Ventures
 
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social NetworksCSRA, Inc.
 

Similaire à Nextwave q405 (20)

Web 2.0
Web 2.0Web 2.0
Web 2.0
 
The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystem
The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystemThe cloud changing_the_business_ecosystem
The cloud changing_the_business_ecosystem
 
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)
Criteria & Themes (Seed Rounds)
 
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media Companies
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media CompaniesChallenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media Companies
Challenges and Opportunities in the Internet for Media Companies
 
Market Trends Report
Market Trends ReportMarket Trends Report
Market Trends Report
 
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10
McKinsey Quarterly Dez 10
 
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlines
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlinesArchitecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlines
Architecture Of Participation - Enterprise2.0 adoption outlines
 
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3
ADTELLIGENCE_White Paper_Monetization of Social Networks_Chapter3
 
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech
20 Red Hot, Pre-IPO Companies in 2015 B2B Tech
 
Making sense of web 2.0
Making sense of web 2.0Making sense of web 2.0
Making sense of web 2.0
 
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial Services
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial ServicesNext-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial Services
Next-Generation Cloud Infrastructure for Financial Services
 
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcamp
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcampWeb Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcamp
Web Innovation - DBB - social media & blogcamp
 
Cook Gordon
Cook GordonCook Gordon
Cook Gordon
 
The Enterprise 2.0 Market
The Enterprise 2.0 MarketThe Enterprise 2.0 Market
The Enterprise 2.0 Market
 
9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf
 
9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf9789075414240.pdf
9789075414240.pdf
 
IIoT Talent Implications
IIoT Talent ImplicationsIIoT Talent Implications
IIoT Talent Implications
 
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018
MMV Webinar 4. Telco Perspectives. April 2018
 
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks
17 Visionaries 2010 Predictions for Enterprise Social Networks
 
Netscape
NetscapeNetscape
Netscape
 

Dernier

20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf
20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf
20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdfAdnet Communications
 
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...ssifa0344
 
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service NashikHigh Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service NashikCall Girls in Nagpur High Profile
 
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...ranjana rawat
 
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...Pooja Nehwal
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdfGale Pooley
 
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School Designs
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School DesignsInstant Issue Debit Cards - School Designs
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School Designsegoetzinger
 
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptx
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptxDividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptx
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptxanshikagoel52
 
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...Call Girls in Nagpur High Profile
 
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdfAdnet Communications
 
Malad Call Girl in Services 9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free Delivery
Malad Call Girl in Services  9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free DeliveryMalad Call Girl in Services  9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free Delivery
Malad Call Girl in Services 9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free DeliveryPooja Nehwal
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdfGale Pooley
 
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual service
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual serviceCALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual service
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual serviceanilsa9823
 
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130 Available With Room
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130  Available With RoomVIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130  Available With Room
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130 Available With Roomdivyansh0kumar0
 
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spirit
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School SpiritInstant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spirit
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spiritegoetzinger
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdfGale Pooley
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdfGale Pooley
 
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdfFinTech Belgium
 
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...ssifa0344
 
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of Marketing
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of MarketingQuarter 4- Module 3 Principles of Marketing
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of MarketingMaristelaRamos12
 

Dernier (20)

20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf
20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf
20240417-Calibre-April-2024-Investor-Presentation.pdf
 
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...
TEST BANK For Corporate Finance, 13th Edition By Stephen Ross, Randolph Weste...
 
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service NashikHigh Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
High Class Call Girls Nashik Maya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Nashik
 
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...
(DIYA) Bhumkar Chowk Call Girls Just Call 7001035870 [ Cash on Delivery ] Pun...
 
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...
Dharavi Russian callg Girls, { 09892124323 } || Call Girl In Mumbai ...
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 19.pdf
 
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School Designs
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School DesignsInstant Issue Debit Cards - School Designs
Instant Issue Debit Cards - School Designs
 
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptx
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptxDividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptx
Dividend Policy and Dividend Decision Theories.pptx
 
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...
VVIP Pune Call Girls Katraj (7001035870) Pune Escorts Nearby with Complete Sa...
 
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf
20240429 Calibre April 2024 Investor Presentation.pdf
 
Malad Call Girl in Services 9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free Delivery
Malad Call Girl in Services  9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free DeliveryMalad Call Girl in Services  9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free Delivery
Malad Call Girl in Services 9892124323 | ₹,4500 With Room Free Delivery
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 23.pdf
 
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual service
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual serviceCALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual service
CALL ON ➥8923113531 🔝Call Girls Gomti Nagar Lucknow best sexual service
 
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130 Available With Room
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130  Available With RoomVIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130  Available With Room
VIP Kolkata Call Girl Jodhpur Park 👉 8250192130 Available With Room
 
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spirit
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School SpiritInstant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spirit
Instant Issue Debit Cards - High School Spirit
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 30.pdf
 
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdfThe Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdf
The Economic History of the U.S. Lecture 20.pdf
 
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf
06_Joeri Van Speybroek_Dell_MeetupDora&Cybersecurity.pdf
 
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...
Solution Manual for Principles of Corporate Finance 14th Edition by Richard B...
 
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of Marketing
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of MarketingQuarter 4- Module 3 Principles of Marketing
Quarter 4- Module 3 Principles of Marketing
 

Nextwave q405

  • 1. TM *nextwave Ideas for private equity investors and entrepreneurs in the technology industry Inside Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly known as the Web Successfully shaping the future: MoneyTree™ FutureCentricSM companies 2005 ISSUE 4: 2005 Q4 and Full-year *connectedthinking
  • 2. TM *nextwave Special topics 01 Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly known as the Web ISSUE 4: 2005 07 MoneyTreeTM Report Full-year and Q4 results 23 Successfully shaping the future: MoneyTreeTM FutureCentricSM companies 2005 Quarterly features 20 Regulatory buzz: Issues regarding cheap stock and IPOs for private companies 24 Industry currents: Fast-growth CEOs take brighter outlook, but proceed with caution 26 Voice of the VC
  • 3. Message to the reader A new year, a new beginning. So once again nextwave™ is looking to the future—at the evolution of technology and the companies and entrepreneurs driving that change. Our lead article, “Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly known as the Web,” explores the next wave of Web-related development driven by the rapid consumer adoption of broadband and high-speed wireless connectivity. Our second article, “Successfully shaping the future: MoneyTree™ FutureCentricSM companies 2005,” showcases a few of the entrepreneurial companies who are building ideas and products that are shaping our future. Also included in this issue are the fourth-quarter and full-year results of the PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTreeTM Report; data provided by Thomson Financial. Venture capitalists matched 2004 by investing $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals in 2005. See pages 7 through 18 for full details. Finally, look for our regular features throughout the issue—Industry currents, Regulatory buzz, and Voice of the VC—providing brief updates, useful advice, and expert opinions on both the VC and technology industries. You have a vision. PricewaterhouseCoopers helps bring that vision to reality. We hope you enjoy the Q4 2005 issue of nextwave™ and appreciate your comments about our current issue or ideas for what you’d like to see covered in future issues. Remember to visit us on the Web at www.pwcnextwave.com. Tracy T. Lefteroff Global Managing Partner Private Equity and Venture Capital tracy.t.lefteroff@us.pwc.com
  • 4.
  • 5. Web 2.0: The Internet subset formerly known as the Web There are many reasons to change “We are clearly in a new wave of media types—including text, audio, a name—from technology updates Web-related development that is and video—as well as broad Web and business model breakthroughs being driven by the rapid consumer adoption by both consumers and to participation in the Federal adoption of broadband and high- enterprises.” Witness Protection Program. In speed wireless connectivity,” observes the case of the Web, the tweak Brad Feld, a managing director at “For us as auditors, Web 2.0 could to Web 2.0—first suggested Mobius Venture Capital. “Google present lots of exciting opportunities by O’Reilly Media Inc. VP Dale did a brilliant job of teaching a huge and, hopefully, I think some of these Dougherty—is meant to suggest number of people that an acceptable companies may have a better chance user interface to the Web was simply of going public than companies in that enough factors have changed a box on the screen that you typed other technology sectors,” notes since the late ‘90s to warrant text into and hit the search button; Danny Wallace, partner in charge of another look at what the Web this resulted in a resurgence of online PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Assurance means to commerce, applications/ advertising and ecommerce that is Venture-backed Start-up Practice in services, and online communities. helping the premises of many pre- San Jose. “However, on the whole, Has the process of how we gain bubble entrepreneurs and investors the VCs we speak with—regardless of access to the Web, interact with finally become realized. As optimism sector—expect far fewer companies to it, and deliver services evolved returns to technology entrepreneurs go public. Let’s say their expectation enough to support more profitable, and investors, we’ve seen an incredible four or five years ago was that three sustainable businesses? new wave of innovation across all or four out of ten companies in their www.pwcnextwave.com 1
  • 6. portfolios might be going public, December 2004 co-founded Odeo— tasking 19-year-old cousin interact now it might be one. And, they factor a creative way to record and share with the Web. “You can assemble that into their investment strategies.” audio at no cost to the user—with subcomponents to make applications his neighbor, Noah Glass. This time, much more quickly than you used to Such IPO estimates don’t seem to the team chose to take VC and other be able to do and that’s why you see dampen the spirit of developers, funding, which they describe with things like Google releasing a map API some of whom look to be acquired by a flair in the OdeoBlog as follows: and soon you have people mapping Internet companies such as Google “Leading the deal was Charles River friends, mapping packages, mapping and Yahoo!. Benchmark Capital Ventures, featuring George Zachary. In restaurants, mapping stores… It’s General Partner Bill Gurley says addition to Charles River’s involvement, relatively quick to snap together that this seems to be the case with we included another small firm, Amicus different data sources to create interesting technology/features and Ventures, and a substantial group of composite applications on the Web.” tool-based companies with exits under individuals (both in number and weight) $150 million. “If you’re not sure that in the funding round: Mitch Kapor, Joe Scott Rafer, who grew up in a tech what you’re building has the essence Kraus, Tim O’Reilly, Ron Conway, Josh products household near Boston, of a full, standalone business, there is a Kopelman, Don Hutchinson, Dave Pell, is aiming at the under-25 crowd of huge incentive to bootstrap or take very Mike Maples, Francesco Caio, Barbara cell phone users as the new CEO little money,” says Gurley. “Then, you Poggiali, Emanuele Angelidis, James of Wireless Ink. “There are all sorts own 60-70 percent of something, sell it Hong, and Ed Zschau.” of things we take for granted on the for $20 million, and that’s real cash.” Web in terms of just being able to find Web 2.0 as environment people with the same interests we Principal for New Business have,” says Rafer. “And, because of Development at Google, Chris Sacca, Hallmarks of the participatory, the way mobile phone carriers have encourages entrepreneurs to think connected Web 2.0 environment behaved there is no central index for big: “Don’t assume we have thought include: the rapid rise of blogging— people in my area, or ways to find about ‘X’ already. One of the most posting to or writing in Web logs— fans of the same bands and similar entertaining things for me to do is read since 2004 when people discovered information. We’re simply going to the blogs and see how much credit that blog software wrote the HTML string a bunch of existing mobile chat folks give us for our alleged next moves software for them; categorizing sites, à system users together with a rational in a particular area,” wrote Sacca in la del.icio.us and Flickr, collaboratively interface so that anywhere on the his blog. “They presume we have a using keywords referred to as “tags”; planet you can find people in your big honking master plan document the mainstreaming of RSS (Really city currently on their phones chatting somewhere and have the next few Simple Syndication), which started as in this moment about a topic, or in a years set forth step-by-step. Truth is, a way to aggregate news feeds, spread particular forum, or at this concert.” we are constantly learning. We tend to to use in job postings, commerce, and launch early and launch often. However, enterprise applications and will be part David Sifry, founder and CEO of this doesn’t mean we have it all figured of Microsoft’s upcoming new releases; Technorati, a search engine unique for out. You have a killer idea for us? Are and more engaging client functionality its focus on people and time—instead we missing the big picture? Can you through the browser using AJAX, of pages—considers one of the key help us? Fire away. For instance, you which uses existing technology like changes of Web 2.0 over Web 1.0 to guys who have been thinking about JavaScript and XML. be evidenced by the change in the VoIP for years and years, what would metaphor for how we think about the you do if you were Google, and how “Web 2.0 is really a user application- Web, from a library, where a reference can you work with us to get that done?” driven revolution,” notes 27-year-old librarian can help you find the sources MBA Charles Hudson, a product you need, to an ongoing conversation. Some “serial entrepreneurs” take both manager at Iron Port Systems, San “Google understood an additional routes. For example, Evan Williams Bruno, California, who marvels at the dimension of the data,” explains Sifrey. sold Blogger to Google in 2003 and in difference in the way he and his multi- “They understood it was not just about 2 Issue 4: 2005
  • 7. “You cannot go into the same water twice.” Plato understanding key words to figure out or another event, instantly. “Instead relevance, but [they could produce of a 24-hour news cycle, the world is better search results by] counting measured in megahertz,” says Sifry. hyperlinks to those pages. Google is so good because it doesn’t rely on Technorati is so good because you can algorithms alone to feature what’s search for a topic or name and find out relevant; it uses people to understand what’s been said about it in as little as context and gray areas as well.” a few seconds ago, by whom, and how many other people link to this site— Sifry’s story seems to be another which can offer a sense of authority characteristic of Web 2.0: creating a for the source. The company’s model product because it satisfies a personal is to generate revenue in three ways: need for interacting with the Web. Sifry, 1. advertising, 2. fees for sponsored an avid blogger who had headed up links, and 3. syndication relationships, three previous start-ups, wanted to such as those with The Washington know who was talking about him and Post, Newsweek, International Herald built Technorati over Thanksgiving in Tribune, and other big media. 2002. He didn’t intend it as a business, but he explains: “It turns out there are Dean Petracca, Global Managing a whole lot of other people out there Partner of Software and who basically felt the same way. It Internet Industry Services at just turned out to be wildly popular.” PricewaterhouseCoopers, views the Consider the impact when on-air difference between Web 1.0 and Web news organizations can view the buzz 2.0 as a before-and-after period in about the story they’re broadcasting, terms of technology, its adoption, and www.pwcnextwave.com 3
  • 8. “Web 2.0 is really a user application-driven revolution.” Charles Hudson, Iron Port Systems how the two affect business practices, product, which provides mass feed particularly when it comes to greater importing, management, and analysis cooperation among companies. to help publishers with multiple feeds better understand and engage “I see increased recognition that its audience. USA Today.com uses not only does Web 2.0 encompass FeedFoundry to manage and measure technology, content, and connectivity, RSS subscription growth for over 100 but also that companies specialize in of its magazine and columnist feeds. delivering value in each of those areas, and in many cases, acknowledgement In any environment, healthy that no one company necessarily has collaborative relationships hinge on a all the talent it needs,” says Petracca. mutually beneficial business model. “For example, valuable content that For example, Revver is a monetization could be delivered over the Web engine for video shorts being backed more often might be provided by one by Skype’s main investors—Draper, company and managed or maintained Bessemer, and DFJ. “Revver’s mission by another.” in life is to help the publishers or owners or creators of video shorts For example, Chicago-based privately make money through advertising,” says held Feedburner enables commercial Andreas Stavropoulous, managing publishers, podcasters (downloadable director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson. “So, audio file makers inspired by the they publish their video on Revver, set iPod), and bloggers to reach millions a tag with it, and no matter where it of subscribers in more than 190 appears as long as someone clicks countries using Rich Site Summary on an ad delivered somewhere when (RSS) technology. it plays you get a big piece [of the revenue]. Figuring out the business “When we started FeedBurner in 2003, model—which is making money based we saw the Web evolving from a tool either on advertising, subscriptions, for simple browsing to more intention- or transactions—in the Web 2.0 based searching to now allowing distributed or syndicated world is consumers to subscribe to any content no small task,” he adds. “It’s much and read, listen to, or watch it wherever harder to do when you’re talking about they want, when they are ready to do a world of syndication, where your so,” says Chicago-based FeedBurner content at point A gets consumed CEO, Dick Costolo. “It was clear to us at point B, which may or may not that every network-aware device would be connected, may be intermittently soon provide a mechanism to consume connected, and measured differently.” all manner of content and that the standard of distribution would be RSS. “There are many companies that We had a simple plan to be the people are taking a longer term view who help publishers navigate the and trying to build a sustainable complexities of measuring subscriber standalone business,” observes reach, maximizing subscription growth, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Wallace. and making money from content in “It’s hard to do that on your own syndication, and that has remained and often it results in partnering up our goal.” On January 24, Feedburner with another company, particularly a announced its new FeedFoundry local company if you are considering 4 Issue 4: 2005
  • 9. venturing into emerging international hard technology. That has changed. By September 2005, Salesforce.com markets. This is true for large and small Now, every VC firm on Sand Hill had invested $50 million to rebuild its companies alike. Consider Yahoo! for Road is rushing to hire someone to architecture, hardware, and two data example and their recent deal with run their Internet consumer practice. centers—and created an on-demand Alibaba in China, reportedly valued Because if you look over the past five operating system and platform at $4 billion. At the other end of the years, whether it’s Google or Skype called AppExchange from which spectrum you have a company like or Shopping.com, all these deals are Salesforce.com subscribers could Mforma, a venture-backed company Internet deals. They had much bigger choose to test-drive and use business that provides mobile entertainment exits than other deals. I think the top applications from independent content to leading wireless five exits of the past seven years are vendors, including Adobe PDF, operators globally. They invested all consumer Internet: Google, eBay, Business Objects’ Crystal Reports, in and partnered with two content Yahoo!, Expedia, Amazon. Now they’re and Skype for free Voice Over development companies in China all back. What does that mean? From a Internet Provider (VoIP) conference to capitalize on that market’s huge supply/demand perspective it’s horrible calls. The company also created a potential. Something they could simply for investors. You went from having sandbox application for developers not have accomplished alone. In China, four or five guys to a multiple order and customers to share and explore there are 100 million Internet users and of magnitude—now all of a sudden applications. 360 million mobile users, giving them there have been five comparison the highest mobile phone to Internet shopping deals funded after the first “For the vendors, getting greater user ratio and twice as many phone three have all been sold—which is a revenues over time offers a more users as in the US.” bizarre thing. predictable model in terms of forecasting what those revenues might Remember the consumer “So, I find it more of a time to be be,” says Petracca. “It also gives market? cautious rather than opportunistic,” companies a better way to reach the concludes Gurley. “Not because of the small business marketplace because Not everyone will tell you how they opportunity side, which is improving, of the user’s lower entry cost.” really feel about Internet investing quite but it’s not improving at the rate at the way Gurley can: “Stocks are doing which the supply side of venture capital “If you go back as far as ’97-’98 well, there have been some Internet has grown.” people started talking about software IPOs and M&A exits and companies as a service and for various reasons, are making profits—nice profits,” Beyond the browser including the bust, that theory didn’t Gurley intones. Here’s the other shoe. live up to expectations as much as The ‘I told you so’: Online platforms are very Web 2.0 it should have,” says Bill Gurley, and at the heart of supporting the general partner, Benchmark Capital. “I think the venture industry broadly application service provider (ASP) “Fast forward to today and look at the ran away from consumer Internet business model. Consider bubble- success of Salesforce.com and others when the bubble burst, because when survivor Salesforce.com, which was like Websense and Websidestory— the bubble burst consumer Internet designed from scratch to run over the that clearly is a business model that went first—it ended up being that Internet. Back in 2000 nextwave spoke Wall Street loves. The multiples are telecom equipment was three times with Salesforce.com’s co-founder, incredibly high.” the whole consumer Internet—but chairman, and CEO, Marc Benioff, consumer Internet always had a taint and included his announcement that Like Microsoft and IBM have done with to it. Dot-com became a euphemism his pure-play sales-force automation independent software vendors, the for bad business. And so many VCs software company planned “to offer Salesforce platform model incorporates ran away—I think there were four or a complete customer relationship selected application service vendors five of us that kept after consumer management environment, including more tightly into its application and Internet. They were going back to sales-force automation, customer infrastructure ecosystem in an on- our core, which was what they call support, and marketing services.” demand (or SaaS) framework. www.pwcnextwave.com 5
  • 10. “Reaching customers was the disruptive force that drove the first Internet boom.” Tim O’Brien, Microsoft Microsoft plans to hold a Web for two years now,” says Costolo. and other devices; it’s about how to developer and designer conference “We are absolutely of the belief that make that information most relevant to in March called MIX ’06 (www.mix06. publishers have to syndicate their users. We have a clear path forward as com) to outline the company’s current content, distribute it, and attach Microsoft embraces RSS.” and future investments in Web platform monetization mechanisms to it that technologies. O’Reilly Media Inc. assume it will be consumed far away Can you be too thin or too rich? President and CEO, Tim O’Reilly, who from the originating site or source. It’s published the 16-page piece, “What is just the beginning of innovations that In the Web 2.0 environment, you’ll Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business will offer publishers and subscribers be hearing a lot about the notion that Models for the Next Generation of the option of becoming untethered given the rich interactivity and all the Software,” on his company’s Web site from proprietary systems.” bandwidth out there all you need is a in September, will have a dialogue with browser and a “thin client,” a server Bill Gates at MIX ’06. J.B. Holston, CEO of Newsgator.com, without any real software on it. an early RSS technology adopter and “Microsoft had made a number rapid innovator, says he really hopes “That’s not true,” says O’Brien. “It’s not of investments in Web tools and Microsoft’s upcoming IE 7 and Vista an either/or world. Reaching customers technologies long before Web 2.0 releases do speed up RSS adoption was the disruptive force that drove the started making these headlines,” exponentially. “MS has been a great first Internet boom,” he explains. “Now, says Tim O’Brien, group manager of ‘partner’ to us, in a ton of ways; one of user experience on the client becomes Platform Strategy for Microsoft. “We which has been to share their roadmap the unique differentiator. Internet reach announced enhanced tools for Web openly. We build everything we do on has become a commodity,” he asserts, development and tools for graphic Microsoft technologies and, as a result, noting the proliferation of desk bars, design at our Professional Developers’ they’ve been very open with us as we tool bars, task bars, sidebars, and Conference this past September. Our build our company because it’s good other client-side pieces of technology. investments on the services side, even for them to have companies using their “Skype is a Win32 application that the more recent ones announced in technology do well,” says Holston, who runs on the client. The Google toolbar November—Windows Live and Office is no stranger to navigating corporate is an application that runs on the Live—are platform plays.” When networks. Holston started Yahoo! client. Most of what Google and Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Vista Europe, the joint venture between Yahoo! announced at the Computer roll-out this year, O’Brien says: “The Yahoo! and Ziff Davis, which he was Electronics Show was all client-side RSS capabilities in [these products] running in Europe at the time. “If you’re technologies that run on the PC. I think are going to make what is a Web 2.0 a start-up, the big thing you have to it’s interesting that Salesforce would technology still in quasi-early stage do when you are potentially competing have a Microsoft Outlook edition of of adoption available to hundreds of in Microsoft space is to just innovate their product,” he remarks, alluding to millions of people… If you’re a VC faster than they do… The best position Salesforce.com’s long-time campaign looking at an early-stage company who you can be in is if you’ve got a close for The End of Software. is saying, ‘I pull traffic into my site; I sell relationship with them so you can ads; and I’ve got this really cool RSS know where they’re going, but you The emphasis on client experience capability’… If people stop visiting that still have to cycle your products much is apparent as Microsoft expands its site because they can just subscribe to more quickly than they can. That’s our outreach from independent, high-level what they need, they’ve got a business competitive advantage. We’re always software developers to include front- model issue to think through.” going to be a higher end, richer way to end graphics designers and illustrators present the most relevant text, audio, while fine-tuning its new Expression Keeping just the right distance ahead and video to users,” he explains. Interactive Designer and Expression of democratization is how forward- Graphic Designer development looking companies, like FeedBurner, “It’s not just a question of how to tools for Web and Windows design. must think. “FeedBurner has been aggregate, serve up, and synchronize Microsoft’s Mix ’06 conference in innovating on ad insertion into feeds feeds over mobile phones, computers, March will address optimizing the continues on page 19 6 Issue 4: 2005
  • 11. This special report, covering 2004 to 2005, provides detailed results of Q4 2005, summary findings for full-year 2005, and an additional year of trends. More detailed results, including an electronic version of this report, can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at www.pwcmoneytree.com. Directory Tracy T. Lefteroff Kirk Walden tracy.t.lefteroff@us.pwc.com kirk.walden@us.pwc.com Total equity investments into venture-backed companies Investments in the fourth quarter of 2005 totaled $5.1 marked the first increase in venture capital investing billion in 709 deals, down slightly from $5.4 billion in Q3 after three years of consecutive declines. Funding for 2005, but well within the range of investment levels seen later stage companies rose markedly in 2005 to $9.7 over the past 14 quarters. billion, while the number of companies getting venture capital for the first time increased to 901, continuing In 2005, venture capitalists matched 2004 by investing a steady year-over-year rise. Both measures were $21.7 billion in 2,939 deals. Full-year 2004’s $21.6 billion four-year highs. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 30 29 28.078 28 27 26.312 26 27.910 25 24 23 22 22.400 21 20 19 $ in billions 18 17 16 15 14 13 11.313 12 12.970 11 10 9 8.056 8 7 8.365 5.999 6.148 6.164 4.932 5.543 5.676 5.084 6 6.699 4.435 5 4 5.105 4.988 5.445 4.565 4.342 4.768 4.706 3 2 1 0 2,085 2,083 1,912 1,729 1,274 1,218 997 967 819 840 685 713 684 723 699 759 680 826 662 798 704 784 742 709 total # of deals *connectedthinking
  • 12. Investments by industry 2004 to 2005 The Life Sciences sector (Biotechnology and Medical Devices industries, together) inched up to a five-year high in 2005 with $6.0 billion in 608 deals compared to $5.8 billion in 589 deals in 2004. Software investments slipped 10% in 2005 to $4.7 billion in 840 deals, yet easily held its position as the largest single industry category for the year, capturing 22% of total dollars and 29% of all deals. The Networking industry continued its slide, ending at $1.4 billion in 2005, an eight-year low point. The Telecommunications industry’s Wireless subcategory has become a hot spot. For full-year 2005, 152 wireless-related companies received $1.3 billion, a 24% increase over 2004’s $1.1 billion. This increase pushed the Telecommunications category to a three- year high of $2.1 billion in 2005. 2005 2004 $ in millions 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 # of deals 840 4,703.6 Software 886 5,246.3 357 3,861.6 Biotechnology 340 4,147.0 247 2,129.2 Telecommunications 236 1,946.8 251 2,114.1 Medical Devices and Equipment 249 1,705.5 210 1,778.2 Semiconductors 239 2,077.8 157 1,402.1 Networking and Equipment 183 1,554.3 149 945.1 Media and Entertainment 116 900.2 130 921.1 IT Services 131 612.6 123 740.5 Industrial/Energy 131 646.6 56 643.6 Financial Services 70 435.2 89 515.4 Business Products and Services 80 461.0 59 467.5 Computers and Peripherals 69 592.7 67 436.8 Healthcare Services 68 420.6 83 387.4 Electronics/Instrumentation 65 383.0 73 362.0 Consumer Products and Services 60 297.2 43 270.5 Retailing/Distribution 40 207.4 5 1.5 Undisclosed/Other 3 1.1 2,939 21,680.0 Grand Total 2,966 21,635.3 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 $ in millions Definitions of the industry categories can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at www.pwcmoneytree.com. Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time. ©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). 8 Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report
  • 13. Investments by industry Q4 2004, Q3 2005, Q4 2005 The Life Sciences sector (Biotechnology and Medical Devices industries, together) continued its dominance in Q4 2005. Investments in the sector totaled $1.7 billion or one-third of all venture capital invested during the quarter. This represents the largest portion of overall investing the sector has attracted in a single quarter. Half of the top ten industries experienced an increase in financing from the prior quarter. The Industrial/Energy, Business Products/Services, and IT Services industries experienced the largest gains in the fourth quarter, up modestly from Q3 2005. Q4 05 Q3 05 Q4 04 $ in millions 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 # of deals 95 1,068.8 Biotechnology 94 1,024.2 101 1,266.1 192 1,036.6 Software 201 1,133.7 238 1,407.5 65 613.0 Medical Devices and Equipment 69 604.0 65 445.5 62 517.1 Telecommunications 68 586.9 55 413.4 46 425.1 Semiconductors 56 531.7 71 576.1 27 210.3 IT Services 34 195.5 42 168.7 37 194.8 Media and Entertainment 37 197.5 31 294.1 29 188.8 Networking and Equipment 33 354.0 41 283.9 35 186.0 Industrial/Energy 33 154.5 37 168.7 27 133.5 Business Products and Services 24 122.0 13 31.3 14 126.7 Computers and Peripherals 12 66.1 17 93.5 20 105.2 Electronics/Instrumentation 19 96.1 15 95.4 17 102.5 Healthcare Services 16 67.5 16 97.2 18 80.2 Consumer Products and Services 18 97.6 18 97.2 12 51.3 Financial Services 13 81.7 25 164.7 11 42.7 Retailing/Distribution 14 131.8 11 72.0 2 1.5 Undisclosed/Other 1 0.0 2 0.6 709 5,084.1 Grand Total 742 5,444.7 798 5,675.7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 $ in millions Definitions of the industry categories can be found on the MoneyTree™ Web site at www.pwcmoneytree.com. Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time. ©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). www.pwcmoneytree.com 9
  • 14. Investments by region 2004 to 2005 Of the ten regions garnering the largest amounts of venture capital in 2005, three experienced double-digit increases in investing over the prior year. LA/Orange County chalked up a 58% increase in investment levels from 2004, while the Midwest and NY Metro regions both attracted 17% and 12% more dollars, respectively, than in the prior year. During 2005, Silicon Valley dominated the attention of investors as 35% of all US venture capital was invested in the region. Taken together, the top three regions—Silicon Valley, New England, and NY Metro—accounted for 55% of the dollars invested and 49% of the deals reported in 2005. 2005 2004 $ in millions 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 # of deals 895 7,622.8 Silicon Valley 913 7,808.0 385 2,618.4 New England 395 3,074.4 164 1,690.4 NY Metro 204 1,504.7 176 1,484.0 LA/Orange County 138 937.9 202 1,215.3 Southeast 221 1,259.5 158 1,068.9 Texas 157 1,099.0 122 1,032.8 San Diego 122 1,212.3 150 913.8 Northwest 146 977.8 184 885.2 DC/Metroplex 165 961.6 144 773.5 Midwest 151 660.0 91 687.8 Philadelphia Metro 95 689.2 75 611.7 Colorado 68 413.3 79 590.3 Southwest 52 331.1 60 314.0 North Central 68 425.0 15 79.9 Sacramento/N.Cal 8 47.9 30 58.9 Upstate NY 29 106.3 5 17.0 AK/HI/PR 5 15.1 4 15.1 South Central 24 110.5 0 0.0 Other US 5 1.5 2,939 21,680.0 Grand Total 2,966 21,635.3 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 $ in millions Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time. ©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). 10 Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report
  • 15. Investments by region Q4 2004, Q3 2005, Q4 2005 Seven of the ten largest regions in Q4 2005 recorded an increase in investing over the prior quarter. Investment levels in Texas—capturing $296 million—increased by 43% while San Diego attracted 22% more than Q3 2005. Taken together, the top three regions in Q4 2005—Silicon Valley, New England, and Texas— accounted for 55% of the dollars invested and 50% of the deals reported. Q4 05 Q3 05 Q4 04 $ in millions 0 100 200 300 400 500 # of deals 222 1,779.0 Silicon Valley 230 2,110.5 248 1,951.8 93 702.6 New England 93 622.3 109 806.1 42 295.5 Texas 37 207.0 41 271.4 37 286.5 NY Metro 43 283.2 49 265.2 34 278.2 LA/Orange County 47 360.4 40 299.4 39 270.7 Northwest 35 241.3 34 181.7 31 266.7 San Diego 36 219.2 40 351.8 40 235.3 Southeast 62 448.8 61 433.3 51 225.0 DC/Metroplex 40 209.3 46 409.3 23 178.0 Philadelphia Metro 17 164.0 20 124.7 33 176.1 Midwest 36 130.7 39 225.9 19 121.0 Southwest 19 181.8 9 83.1 17 119.7 North Central 11 59.2 17 105.3 16 115.3 Colorado 21 175.1 21 93.5 2 14.0 Sacramento/N.Cal 3 9.2 3 16.1 1 10.2 AK/HI/PR 1 3.8 2 5.6 8 8.6 Upstate NY 10 17.9 6 7.9 1 1.5 South Central 1 1.0 10 43.1 0 0.0 Other US 0 0.0 3 0.4 709 5,084.1 Grand Total 742 5,444.7 798 5,675.7 0 100 200 300 400 500 $ in millions Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time. ©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). www.pwcmoneytree.com 11
  • 16. Investments by state 2004 to 2005 2005 2004 $ in millions 0 250 500 750 1,000 # of deals 1,208 10,219.5 California 1,181 10,006.2 331 2,352.1 Massachusetts 348 2,811.9 158 1,068.9 Texas 157 1,099.0 124 1,042.2 New York 147 726.5 77 823.1 New Jersey 86 959.3 114 736.3 Washington 114 825.2 75 611.7 Colorado 68 413.3 56 507.5 North Carolina 315.5 53 74 469.5 Pennsylvania 560.9 91 97 442.6 Maryland 580.8 84 74 401.7 Virginia 300.1 71 55 361.2 Florida 318.1 58 60 261.7 Georgia 524.4 76 30 249.1 Utah 197.9 28 51 241.1 Illinois 223.5 52 44 227.9 Minnesota 353.5 50 29 194.0 Connecticut 180.4 32 26 148.0 Arizona 69.7 10 28 138.1 Oregon 148.7 29 31 119.3 Ohio 57.0 31 12 117.4 Missouri 31.0 11 26 112.6 New Hampshire 154.8 26 7 104.9 Nevada 39.5 6 10 95.6 Indiana 67.3 9 21 89.0 Michigan 131.8 19 16 88.4 New Mexico 24.0 8 13 77.1 Rhode Island 45.4 7 12 67.9 Wisconsin 57.1 10 23 65.6 Tennessee 80.5 23 5 35.2 Vermont 5.1 4 52 211.0 Undisclosed/Other 327.1 77 2,939 21,680.0 Grand Total 21,635.3 2,966 0 250 500 750 1,000 $ in millions Data is current as of January 24, 2006. PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association have taken responsible steps to ensure that the information contained in the MoneyTree Report has been obtained from reliable sources. However, neither of the parties nor Thomson Financial can warrant the ultimate validity of the data obtained in this manner. Results are updated periodically. Therefore, all data is subject to change at any time. ©2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. All rights reserved. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a Delaware limited liability partnership) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. *connectedthinking is a trademark of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (US). 12 Q4 2005 MoneyTreeTM Report