|This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.|
|WikiProject Private Equity|
- 1 Venture capital
- 2 Improvement Drive
- 3 We should remove the section on "development"
- 4 Statistical data changed
- 5 Locator
- 6 Project to add lists of firms?
- 7 Where are the lists of VC firms?
- 8 Promotional text
- 9 Image copyright problem with Image:Vax780 small.jpeg
- 10 Adding Astute Observation by Forbes Magazine
The definition on venture capital is incorrect according to related literature. Business sciences (McGraw, 1996) define it totally different. You need to verify your sources and citations based on applied business sciences. I am sure that you don't invest in any risk situation. This is one of the main reasons that start-ups don't receive venture capital. My experience with 48 high-tech start-ups as well the results of 10 years of applied business research "Research to Industrialisation" proof the statement as incorrect. I would prefer the definition as stated in the literature which is: Venture capital is no risk capital; it is a pool of equity capital that is professionally managed (McGraw and Hill; 1996). Venture Capital is rated as part of the formal capital market and not part of the informal risk capital market!
- I haven't looked at the history, but the definition appears to still need revision. The article has other areas for improvement, including "ARDC is credited with the first trick..." - is "trick" a financial/investment term? The closest thing on wikipedia would be the lay interpretation which effectively leads to further suspicion regarding the overall quality of the entry. Soupman4 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the line "mostly in the US" is really well put. While it's true the the US certainly has the lions share of both venture backed startups and VC investment, I think "most" gives the wrong slant to it. Perhaps something more factual? "With the US receiving, on average x per cent of global VC investment".
The "international section" needs some work. I would like see the inclusion of a table showing the geographic spread of VC dollars for the most recent year available. Ideally this should be broken down by U.S. states, and then by international country, to show how much money goes to Silicon Valley companies (ie. California) and how much goes to NY and MA companies. Another idea would be to show breakdowns percentage by industry (tech, pharma, internet, communications etc.) There is mention in the article of the VC success "biggies" such as Amazon etc. Maybe a ranking chart of the best return VC investments. This would really help clarify for readers the whole concept of VC investment if there was a chart that showed: Name of VC, Company, Investment amount, Exit Amount. Percentage ROI.
I made the 8/7/2003 changes to the this page. I am an attorney with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosait, specializing in the representation of VC funds. Please direct comments to bmcdaniel (at) public (dot) myfastmail (dot) com
- Nice work. Thanks. Could you review recent changes too? An issue with this article is that it is a bit too focused on the US/Silicon_Valley view.
Ann Winblad is probably the most quotable venture capitalist. This article could use some spicing up. Two things she's notably said is that a new idea is in the market 120 days after it is presented to any VC, period, no matter what kind of trust or legal documents exist. Many VCs just don't sign NDAs to avoid entanglements in ventures they aren't likely to invest in, all things considers (the 1/400 number comes from some studies of Silicon Valley VCs and that was actually during the boom). Another interesting thing that she says is that that it always takes at least five years to fully bake a company, no matter how much one tries to rush the process. By these standards most dotcom IPOs were - half-baked!
The History section is correct in describing how the Glass-Stegall act separated the capital-investment and services functions of investment banks. Implicit seems to be the idea that, in the United States, venture capital serves the capital-investment role that is served by Investment banks in other countries. Although I'm only barely qualified to have an opinion, I'm not sure I would agree with this. It seems to me that companies that are sufficiently large to attract investment banking capital overseas would turn to the public markets in the United States. The public equity markets in the United States are famously deeper, more liquid and open to younger enterprises than foreign markets. Classic venture capital, at least in its pre-bubble manifestation, is really too small to attract the attention of investment banks, either in the United States or overseas. I think that venture capital, as a professional activity, is really confined largely to the United States. Overseas, capital formation on this small scale tends to be done by family, conglomerates or other non-specialized sources.
The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
After coming from Not_a_Number_Technologies I am finding it unclear whether 'Angel Investor' is another word for venture capitalist or is a venture capitalist of some sort.
"Venture capitalist" refers to professional, institutional partners in a fund. Sometimes wealthy individuals decide to invest in a company that is the kind that could be interesting to a VC. Such a non-professional is an "angel investor." There are groups and associations of such people, and sometimes they invest together. Sometimes a venture that was funded by "angels" grows and receives VC funding.
I've pruned the most well-known VCs list. There were a number of firms that showed up on that list that were not well known. I suspect that some VCs have been listing their own firms to promote themselves. I also removed Hummer Winblad, because although they used to be very highly regarded, the sad truth is that their investment returns after the dot com bubble have moved them distinctly below the other top tier firms.
I have tried to clean up this article as it had been annoying me for a while. Hope these changes are useful, but I would be delighted to see others further my efforts. Forgive my opting to make these changes (somewhat) anonymously, only it is a small & incestuous industry... --126.96.36.199 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We should remove the section on "development"
The section titled "Venture capital as a financial tool for Latin American and Caribbean development" reads like an essay, and is irrelevant to the main thrust of the article. I'd suggest it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 May 2007
- Yes, it does read like an essay, and is at times irrelevant. It is true, though, and the general point is relevant (that venture capital can be and is used as a tool for developing underdeveloped economies). I will shorten it drastically to something more appropriate and encyclopedic, and provide citations. -kotra 17:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the lag time. I shortened it to a few sentences as promised, but couldn't find any citations after a quick search. -kotra 05:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Statistical data changed
Some statistical information was recently changed by an anon without a citation. I don't know which information is correct, because neither had a citation. I'm raising the issue here because it might be subtle vandalism. Or maybe it's a constructive edit, and I'm just ignorant (well, I'm probably ignorant either way).
ARD's $70,000 USD investment in Digital Corporation in 1959 had a market value of $37 million USD in 1968.
ARD's $70,000 USD investment in Digital Corporation in 1957 grew in value to $355 million USD.
-kotra 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone write about venture capital in Israel?? I know that Israel gets some of the most venture financing in the entire world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Project to add lists of firms?
Is this a project to create a category page for VC firms?
I think this would be a very great resource for people. To be able to list out a number of firms available to people will give them a place to go out to do further research from the information we have provided them here. I hope someone comments but if not then I will try it on the actual page.Shudgins (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are the lists of VC firms?
I've noticed many instances of text where venture firms which presumably had pages created for them that no longer have listings.
Is there a "secret hiding place" for VC firms? Or do the firms themselves delete their pages?
Here's an example from a page:
With investment from Mohr Davidow Ventures, Trident Capital, and Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, SVIP grew rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Silicon_Valley_venture_capital_firms only lists 2 firms, I suspect there are more... They should be ranked by size of assets under management, and number of deals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- If they were deleted, they were probably deleted for notability reasons. Wikipedia only has articles that meet its notability requirements (see Wikipedia:Notability). It's possible that the red-linked VC firms you've seen mentioned on Wikipedia had articles at one time that were deleted for notability reasons, or someone may have just linked them up when they didn't have an article yet. Sometimes editors link up articles before they exist yet (like this). -kotra (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The Venture capital and development section has had text about the Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) and the Latin American Venture Capital Association (LAVCA) added to it about 5 or 6 times over the last couple years (see the above section for one example). Each time I considered the text promotional (probably added by someone in MIF) and it was unreferenced anyway, so I removed it. Now, the promotional text has been added again:
The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF), of the Inter-American Development Bank has injected capital in over 40 venture capital funds, including eco-friendly investments, clean technologies and renewable energy, among others, in this region.  MIF has also cooperated with the public and private sectors in promoting regulatory changes to make the region’s markets more attractive to local and international private sector investors. MIF has approved a grant to the Latin American Venture Capital Association (LAVCA), to work with other venture capital associations in the region to push for changes in the legal and regulatory environment in order to improve the business climate.
Normally, I would remove it again, but this time it has references (though they are self-published ones from MIF). Also, I am somewhat close to the topic (I work with LAVCA sometimes), so I may have a conflict of interest. So I'd like the opinions of other editors: is this text promotional, non-notable, or poorly sourced? -kotra (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the wording is promotional, and the Multilateral Investment Fund article is worse. At first sight, the sourcing and notability seem fine: I think it is ok to mention an inter-governmental fund working in an unusual area of the market. But someone please reword it to be more specific and directly related to the topic. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Vax780 small.jpeg
The image Image:Vax780 small.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Adding Astute Observation by Forbes Magazine
I believe we should add the following from page 46 of the February 16, 2009 issue of Forbes. Any ideas on which section it belongs in?
Over the past five years early-stage investments have given venture capitalists' limited partners a return of 5%, roughly the same payout as a Treasury bond index. Late-stage deals have returned 12%, according to the National Venture Capital Association. The recent collapse of the new-issues market, where early-stage venture capitalists have historically notched their biggest wins, has made things even worse.