Executive Summary
During 2012, many of the metrics describing the venture capital industry in the United States were similar to those of the prior two years. The decline in the number of firms and capital managed was expected but not as large as some were anticipating. Venture investment focused on companies in the seed and early stages, with many later-stage companies continuing to await a helpful IPO environment. Investment in early-stage life science companies continues to soften.
Fundraising remained very challenging for the majority of venture firms, largely because of a dearth of healthy exits that would distribute yet-unrealized returns to current fund investors. The number of initial public offerings in 2012 fell slightly from 2011 levels, but the proceeds and IPO valuation tally were both up significantly,largely as a result of one huge IPO and a handful of large ones.
A healthy venture capital ecosystem requires its metrics to be in balance. And while the quality of new business opportunities, known as deal flow, remains very high and the best opportunities are getting funded, stresses remain.
Economics, Commerce and Trade Management: An International Journal (ECTIJ)
National Venture Capital Association Yearbook 2013 Highlights
1. NATIONAL
VENTURE
CAPITAL
ASSOCIATION
YEARBOOK 2013
NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION YEARBOOK 2013
PREPARED BY
3 Times Square
18th Floor
New York, NY 10036
www.thomsonreuters.com
1655 Fort Myer Drive
Suite 850
Arlington, VA 22209
www.nvca.org
INCLUDING STATISTICS FROM THE
PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association
MoneyTree™ Report based on data from Thomson Reuters
2. March 2013
Dear Reader:
These are interesting times characterized by economic and political uncertainty - and little forward
motion. And yet in the entrepreneurial section of the economy, the opportunities to create great
companies remain unabated. There is wide agreement among policy makers on the importance of
entrepreneurial companies to economic growth and well-being. Venture capital is a major driver of
that entrepreneurial economy. The nation continues to look to this sector for job creation, economic
development, better healthcare, cleaner technology, and a faster, better, and more secure internet.
The NVCA Yearbook 2013, prepared by Thomson Reuters, is the 16th iteration of a series launched
in early 1998 by NVCA and what is now Thomson Reuters. Since then we have joined forces with
PricewaterhouseCoopers to provide the best possible information on venture capital deals across all
50 states. This investment information is tracked and reported by the PricewaterhouseCoopers/NVCA
MoneyTreeTM Report based on data from Thomson Reuters.
On behalf of the National Venture Capital Association board of directors and staff, we are pleased to
present you with the latest statistics that describe the activity of the venture capital industry in the
United States. These statistics reflect strong survey participation by venture capital practitioners.
This support has allowed us to bring appropriate transparency to a part of the economy that most
people are aware of but few really understand. Your comments are always welcome at
research@nvca.org.
NVCA believes that it is more important than ever to effectively tell the story of venture capital, differentiate it from other forms of alternative assets, and explain what’s needed to continue creating
great, leading-edge companies. We believe that a strong venture capital industry is essential to
America’s future and our quality of life. NVCA is proud to be funding innovation and empowering
entrepreneurs!
Very truly yours
Diana Frazier
FLAG Capital Management
NVCA Director & Chair,
NVCA Research Committee
Mark G. Heesen
NVCA President
John S. Taylor
NVCA Head of Research
3. NVCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2012-2013
Executive Committee
Ray Rothrock
Chair
Venrock Associates
Josh Green
Chair-Elect
Mohr, Davidow Ventures
Michael Greeley
Treasurer
FlyBridge Capital Partners
Jonathan Leff
At-Large & Research Committee
Deerfield Management
Jason Mendelson
At-Large
Foundry Group
Scott Sandell
At-Large
New Enterprise Associates
Research Committee
Diana Frazier
Chair, Research Committee
FLAG Capital Management, LLC
Mike Elliott
Noro-Moseley Partners
Adam Grosser
Silver Lake Kraftwerk
Board Members At-Large
Jonathan Callaghan
True Ventures
Maria Cirino
.406 Ventures
David Douglass
Delphi Ventures
Bruce Evans
Summit Partners
Claudia Fan Munce
IBM Venture Capital Group
Norm Fogelsong
Institutional Venture Partners
Venky Ganesan
Menlo Ventures
Robert Goodman
Bessemer Venture Partners
Mark Gorenberg
Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
Jason Green
Emergence Capital Partners
Ross Jaffe, MD
Versant Ventures
Ray Leach
Jumpstart, Inc.
Sherrill Neff
Quaker BioVentures
Robert Nelsen
ARCH Venture Partners
David Lincoln
Element Partners
James Marver
VantagePoint Capital Partners
Anne Rockhold
Accel Partners
2
Thomson Reuters
5. National Venture Capital Association 2013 Yearbook
National Venture Capital Association
Thomson Reuters
1655 Fort Myer Drive, Suite 850
Arlington, Virginia 22209-3114
Telephone: 703-524-2549
Telephone: 703-524-3940
www.nvca.org
3 Times Square, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4431
Fax: 646-223-4470
www.thomsonreuters.com
President
Mark G. Heesen
Head of Research
John S. Taylor
Senior Vice President
Molly M. Myers
Senior Vice President of Federal Policy & Political
Advocacy
Jennifer Connell Dowling
Vice President of Communications
Emily Mendell
Vice President of Membership & Member Firm
Liaison
Janice Mawson
Vice President of Federal Policy & Political Advocacy
Emily A. Baker
Chief Marketing Officer
Jeanne Lazarus Metzger
Vice President of Federal Life Science Policy
Kelly Slone
Membership and Database Manager
Terry Samm
Manager of Administration and Meetings
Allyson Chappell
Accounting Manager
Beverley Badley
Administrative Assistant
Gwendolyn Taylor
Global Head of Deals & Private Equity
Stephen N. Case II
Vice President, Deals and Private Equity Operations
Shariq Kajiji
Global Business Manager – Private Equity
Jim Beecher
Editor-in-Charge
David Toll
Global Private Equity Operations Manager
Anna Aquino-Chavez
Press Management
Matthew Toole
Product Manager
Lori Ann Silva
Content Specialist
Paul Pantalla
Data Specialist
Francis Base
Research Editor
Eamon Beltran
Senior Art Director
David Cooke
Sales Manager – Publications (Buyouts, VCJ, peHUB)
Greg Winterton (646-223-6787)
ThomsonONE.com Sales:
Dave Sharma (646-223-4048)
Research Lab
Mavis Moulterd, Thea Shepherd
4
Thomson Reuters
8. What is Venture Capital?
Venture capital has enabled the United States to support its entrepreneurial talent and appetite by turning
ideas and basic science into products and services
that are the envy of the world. Venture capital funds
build companies from the simplest form – perhaps
just the entrepreneur and an idea expressed as a business plan – to freestanding, mature organizations.
Risk Capital for Business
Venture capital firms are professional, institutional
managers of risk capital that enables and supports the
most innovative and promising companies. This
money funds new ideas that could not be financed
with traditional bank financing, that threaten established products and services in a corporation, and that
typically require five to eight years to be launched.
Venture capital is quite unique as an institutional
investor asset class. When an investment is made in a
company, it is an equity investment in a company
whose stock is essentially illiquid and worthless until a
company matures five to eight years down the road.
Follow-on investment provides additional funding as
the company grows. These “rounds,” typically occurring every year or two, are also equity investment, with
the shares allocated among the investors and management team based on an agreed “valuation.” But, unless
a company is acquired or goes public, there is little
actual value. Venture capital is a long-term investment.
More Than Money
The U.S. venture industry provides the capital to create some of the most innovative and successful companies. But venture capital is more than money.
Venture capital partners become actively engaged
with a company, typically taking a board seat. With a
startup, daily interaction with the management team is
common. This limits the number of startups in which
any one fund can invest. Few entrepreneurs approaching venture capital firms for money are aware that
they essentially are asking for 1/6 of a person!
Yet that active engagement is critical to the success of
the fledgling company. Many one- and two-person
Thomson Reuters
Venture Capital Backed Companies
Known for Innovative Business Models
Employment at IPO and Now
As
Company
The Home Depot
Starbucks Corporation
Staples
Whole Foods Market, Inc.
eBay
of IPO
650
2,521
1,693
2,350
138
Current
331,000
160,000
89,019
69,500
31,500
# Change
330,350
157
,479
87
,326
67
,150
31,362
Venture Capital Backed Companies
Known for Innovative Technology and Products
Employment at IPO and Now
Company
Microsoft
Intel Corporation
Medtronic, Inc.
Apple Inc.
Google
JetBlue
As of IPO
1,153
460
1,287
1,015
3,021
4,011
Current
94,000
100,100
45,000
76,100
53,861
12,070
# Change
92,847
99,640
43,713
75,085
50,840
8,059
Source: Global Insight; Updated from ThomsonOne 2/2013
companies have received funding but no one- or twoperson company has ever gone public! Along the way,
talent must be recruited and the company scaled up.
Ask any venture capitalist who has had an ultra-successful investment and he or she will tell you that the
company that broke through the gravity evolved from
the original business plan concept with the careful
input of an experienced hand.
Deal Flows — Where The Buys Are
For every 100 business plans that come to a venture
capital firm for funding, usually only 10 or so get a
serious look, and only one ends up being funded. The
venture capital firm looks at the management team,
the concept, the marketplace, fit to the fund’s objectives, the value-added potential for the firm, and the
capital needed to build a successful business. A busy
venture capital professional’s most precious asset is
time. These days, a business concept needs to address
world markets, have superb scalability, be made successful in a reasonable timeframe, and be truly innovative. A concept that promises a 10 or 20 percent
improvement on something that already exists is not
likely to get a close look.
7
9. National Venture Capital Association
Many technologies currently under development by
venture capital firms are truly disruptive technologies
that do not lend themselves to being embraced by
larger companies whose current products could be
cannibalized by this. Also, with the increased emphasis on public company quarterly results, many larger
organizations tend to reduce spending on research and
development and product development when things
get tight. Many talented teams have come to the venture capital process when their projects were turned
down by their companies.
The Exit Funnel
Outcomes of the 11,686 Companies
First Funded 1991 to 2000
Went/Going Public
14%
Still Private
or Unknown*
35%
Acquired
33%
Common Structure — Unique Results
While the legal and economic structures used to create a venture capital fund are similar to those used by
other alternative investment asset classes, venture capital itself is unique. Typically, a venture capital firm
will create a Limited Partnership with the investors as
LPs and the firm itself as the General Partner. Each
“fund,” or portfolio, is a separate partnership. A new
fund is established when the venture capital firm
obtains necessary commitments from its investors, say
$100 million. The money is taken from investors as
the investments are made. Typically, an initial funding
of a company will cause the venture fund to reserve
three or four times that first investment for follow-on
financing. Over the next three to eight or so years, the
venture firm works with the founding entrepreneur to
grow the company. The payoff comes after the company is acquired or goes public. Although the investor
has high hopes for any company getting funded, only
one in six ever goes public and one in three is
acquired.
Economic Alignment of all Stakeholders —
An American Success Story
Venture capital is rare among asset classes in that success is truly shared. It is not driven by quick returns or
transaction fees. Economic success occurs when the
stock price increases above the purchase price. When
a company is successful and has a strong public stock
offering, or is acquired, the stock price of the company reflects its success. The entrepreneur benefits from
appreciated stock and stock options. The rank and file
employees throughout the organization historically
also do well with their stock options. The venture capital fund and its investors split the capital gains per a
8
Known Failed
18%
*Of these, most have quietly failed
pre-agreed formula. Many college endowments, pension funds, charities, individuals, and corporations
have benefited far beyond the risk-adjusted returns of
the public markets.
Beyond the IPO
Many of the most exciting venture capital backed
companies left the venture portfolios after they went
public. Far from being a destination, the IPO process
provides needed growth capital for a growing company. A 2009 analysis by IHS Global Insight shows that
more than 90% of the jobs at today’s venture backed
public companies were created after it went public.
That is, these companies on average are 10% of their
mature size at the time they go public.
What’s Ahead
Much of venture capital’s success has come from the
entrepreneurial spirit pervasive in the American culture,
financial recognition of success, access to good science,
and fair and open capital markets. It is dependent upon
a good flow of science, motivated entrepreneurs, protection of intellectual property, and a skilled workforce.
The nascent deployment of venture capital in other
countries is gated by a country’s or region’s cultural fit, tolerance for failure, services infrastructure
that supports developing companies, intellectual
property protection, efficient capital markets, and
the willingness of big business to purchase from
small companies.
Thomson Reuters
10. Executive Summary
During 2012, many of the metrics describing the venture capital industry in the United States were similar to
those of the prior two years. The decline in the number of firms and capital managed was expected but not as
large as some were anticipating. Venture investment focused on companies in the seed and early stages, with
many later-stage companies continuing to await a helpful IPO environment. Investment in early-stage life science companies continues to soften.
Fundraising remained very challenging for the majority of venture firms, largely because of a dearth of healthy
exits that would distribute yet-unrealized returns to current fund investors. The number of initial public offerings in 2012 fell slightly from 2011 levels, but the proceeds and IPO valuation tally were both up significantly, largely as a result of one huge IPO and a handful of large ones.
A healthy venture capital ecosystem requires its metrics to be in balance. And while the quality of new business
opportunities, known as deal flow, remains very high and the best opportunities are getting funded, stresses
remain.
Introduction
The National Venture Capital Association 2013
Yearbook provides a summary of venture capital
activity in the United States. This ranges from investments into portfolio companies to capital managed
by general partners to fundraising from limited partners to exits of the investments by either IPOs or
mergers and acquisitions. The statistics for this publication were assembled primarily from the
MoneyTree™ Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers
and the National Venture Capital Association, based
on data from Thomson Reuters and analyzed through
Figure 1.0
Venture Capital Under Management
Summary Statistics
No. of VC Firms in Existence
No. of VC Funds in Existence
No. of Principals
No. of First Time VC Funds Raised
No. of VC Funds Raising Money This Year
VC Capital Raised This Year ($B)
VC Capital Under Management ($B)
Avg VC Capital Under Mgt per Firm ($M)
Avg VC Fund Size to Date ($M)
Avg VC Fund Size Raised This Year ($M)
Largest VC Fund Raised to Date ($M)
Thomson Reuters
1992
2002
2012
358
1,089
841
616
2,119
1,269
4,996 14,541
5,887
13
25
43
78
176
162
4.9
15.7
20.1
28.7
272.1
199.2
80.2
249.9
236.9
39.1
94.4
110.6
62.8
89.2
124.1
1,775.0 6,300.0 6,300.0
the ThomsonONE.com (formerly VentureXpert)
database of Thomson Reuters, which has been
endorsed by the NVCA as the official industry activity database. Subscribers to ThomsonONE can recreate most of the charts in this publication and report
individual deal detail and more granular statistics
than provided herein.
Industry Resources
The activity level of the U.S. venture capital industry
is roughly half of what it was at the 2000-era peak.
For example, in 2000, 1053 firms each invested $5
million or more during the year. In 2012, the count
was less than half that at 522.
Venture capital under management in the United
States by the end of 2012 decreased to $199.2 billion
as calculated using the methodology described
below. However, looking behind the numbers, we
know that the industry continues to contract from the
circa 2000 bubble high of $261.2 billion
The slight downtick in number of firms and capital
managed in 2012 perhaps understates a consolidating trend. The average venture capital firm shrunk to
7.0 principals per firm from 7.4 in 2011. The corresponding drop in headcount to under 6,000 principals is almost one-third lower than 2007 levels. This
9
12. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Figure 4.0
Investments in
Portfolio Companies ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
120
100
($ Billions)
80
60
40
200
1
200
2
200
3
2 00
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
199
4
199
5
199
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
0
198
5
198
6
20
Year
Figure 5.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
By Industry Group
All Investments
Industry Group
Information Technology
Medical/Health/Life Science
Non-High Technology
Total
# Companies
2,130
649
364
3,143
# Deals
2,480
818
425
3,723
meant that there was an increase in the average
amount of capital managed by each principal. It is
possible going forward, that the number of principals
per firm will increase as the number of firms
decreases. This is because the bulk of the money
being raised today is being raised by larger, specialty, and boutique firms.
Commitments
New commitments to venture capital funds in the
United States increased for the second year in a row,
which follows four years of declines. In 2012, commitments totaling $20.1 billion were made to 183
funds. This is roughly two-thirds of the annual levels
Thomson Reuters
Initial Investments
Investment
Amt ($Bil)
16.5
6.8
3.4
26.7
# Companies
870
148
156
1,174
# Deals
870
148
156
1,174
Investment
Amt ($Bil)
3.0
0.7
0.4
4.1
seen in 2005-2007 and approximately one-fifth of the
annual amount raised at the bubble peak.
When you look behind the 2012 capital commitments
at the specific funds being raised, the 10 largest funds
represent 48% of the capital raised, with 173 funds
raising the other 52%.
This is the sixth consecutive year in which more
money was invested by the industry than raised in
new commitments. That has been the case in 11 of
the past 13 years. While this is not a true apples-toapples comparison, it does explain the industry’s
strong interest in raising additional funds in 2013
and beyond. The narrow success of recent IPO and
11
13. National Venture Capital Association
Figure 6.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Stage by Dollars Invested
Seed 3%
Later Stage 32%
Early Stage 30%
Expansion 35%
Figure 7.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Industry Sector by Dollars Invested
Telecommunications 2%
Other
0.2%
Biotechnology
15%
Business Products
and Services 0.4%
Computers and
Peripherals 2%
Consumer Products
and Services 5%
Electronics/
Instrumentation 1%
Financial Services 1%
Healthcare Services 1%
Software 31%
Semiconductors
3%
Retailing/
Distribution 2%
Networking and
Equipment 1%
Medical Devices
and Equipment 9%
12
Industrial/Energy 10%
IT Services 7%
Media and
Entertainment 7%
Thomson Reuters
14. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
acquisition markets has not enabled most firms to
pay out sufficient distributions to their investors to
begin raising another fund. For the vast majority of
firms, raising additional capital right now is very
difficult.
Investments
Measuring industry activity with the total dollars
invested in a given year shows that the industry has
remained generally in the $20 billion to $30 billion
range since 2002. In 2012, $26.7 billion was invested in
3,143 companies. This is less than 2011 totals and
greater than 2010 totals. The number of first-time fundings likewise was less than 2011 and greater than 2010.
Further parsing the data shows an increasing portion of
the investment dollars going to California companies.
Software was the leading sector in 2012, receiving
31% of the total dollars. The second largest sector was
Biotechnology which fell to roughly half that amount
at 15.4% of total investment The continued interest in
Clean Technology
investing
brought
the
Figure 8.0
2012 Investments
By State
State
California
Massachusetts
New York
Washington
Texas
Illinois
Colorado
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Virginia
All Others
Total
Number of
Companies
1,280
326
287
101
134
76
85
154
49
62
589
3,143
Pct of
Total
41%
10%
9%
3%
4%
2%
3%
5%
2%
2%
19%
Investment
($ Millions)
14,128.8
3,067.9
1,856.7
931.5
930.5
570.4
564.2
517.8
429.3
372.3
3,282.8
26,652.4
Pct of
Total
53%
12%
7%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
12%
Figure 9.0
Venture-Backed IPOs
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Num of IPOs
48
104
86
43
42
47
120
150
175
140
184
256
141
79
280
238
37
24
26
82
59
68
92
7
13
68
51
49
Thomson Reuters
Offer
Amount
($Mil)
763
2,414
2,125
769
873
1,108
3,726
5,431
6,141
4,004
7,859
12,666
5,831
4,221
24,005
27,443
4,130
2,333
2,024
10,032
5,113
7,127
12,365
765
1,980
7,609
10,690
21,451
Med Offer
Amt ($Mil)
13
14
17
15
16
20
27
24
24
24
36
35
33
43
70
83
80
89
71
70
68
85
97
83
123
93
106
89
Mean Offer
Post Offer
Med Post
Mean Post Median Age
Amt ($Mil) Value ($Mil) Value ($Mil) Value ($Mil) @ IPO (yrs)
16
1,991
32
47
3
23
166,260
53
1889
4
25
10,790
46
150
4
18
20,523
51
555
3
21
5,479
51
166
4
24
5,886
60
178
4
31
14,151
78
168
5
36
15,759
68
147
5
35
14,430
75
129
5
29
9,854
67
91
5
43
17,046
103
136
4
49
40,360
111
191
3
41
17,784
99
146
3
53
9,649
149
214
3
86
86,669
294
425
3
115
63,610
336
464
3
112
15,545
304
576
4
97
8,322
266
347
3
78
7,412
252
285
5
122
50,268
254
613
6
87
39,702
202
673
5
105
71,467
293
1067
5
134
68,282
361
742
6
109
3,645
278
521
7
152
9,192
548
707
6
112
111,386
431
1662
5
210
94,987
606
1862
6
438
122,264
371
2495
7
Mean Age
@ IPO (yrs)
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
5
5
4
6
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
5
6
6
7
7
6
7
8
13
15. National Venture Capital Association
Industrial/Energy sector to 10.5% of the total. Medical
Devices rounded out the top four sectors at 9.4%.
The life sciences share of the venture capital investment dollars decreased in 2012 to its lowest level
since 2002. In 2012, 15.4% of the money went into
Biotechnology, 9.4% into Medical Devices, and 1.2%
into Healthcare Services, totaling 26.0%. This is
down from the 33.1% combined share in 2009.
As has been the case for several years, attention has
been focused on the two ends of the spectrum.
Looking at deal counts, 2012 actually saw the highest
percentage of seed- and early-stage deals since at least
1985 (51.8% of total deals). This certainly would
challenge the suggestion that the industry’s attention
is single-focused on later-stage companies. That said,
the 22.4% of deals going to later-stage companies is
also toward the top end of the historical range. There
remains a record number of companies in portfolios
in the later stage of development that in most other
positions in the business cycle would have already
gone public or otherwise been acquired.
With the rule of thumb that a healthy venture capital
industry invests in 1,000-1,300 new companies each
year, the 1,174 first fundings in 2012 is very much in
that range. Not surprisingly, 81% of those first round
investments were made at the seed- and early-stage
levels.
The year 2012 provided an interesting contrast in geographic dispersion. While 53% of all the investment
dollars went to California-based portfolio companies,
a record for MoneyTree™, companies in 48 states and
DC received financing, also a MoneyTree™ record
high.
Figure 10.0
Venture-Backed M&A Exits
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
14
Number
Total
6
8
10
17
20
19
16
69
59
82
92
107
143
189
227
379
384
363
323
402
443
485
488
416
350
521
488
449
Number
Known
3
1
4
9
10
7
4
43
36
56
58
76
99
113
154
245
175
165
134
199
198
207
200
134
108
149
169
121
($ Millions)
Price
Average
300.2
100.1
63.4
9.1
667.2
111.2
920.7
115.1
746.9
74.7
120.3
10.0
190.5
15.9
2,119.1
81.5
1,332.9
58.0
3,207.1
123.4
3,801.8
111.8
8,230.8
265.5
7,743.6
176.0
8,002.0
105.3
38,688.0
530.0
79,996.4
597.0
25,115.6
120.2
11,913.2
60.2
8,240.8
43.6
28,846.1
142.1
19,600.2
80.0
24,288.5
87.4
30,745.5
106.8
16,236.9
57.6
12,364.9
51.1
17,700.3
47.6
24,093.2
75.5
21,516.2
65.6
Thomson Reuters
16. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Exits
ing or seeking to go public were not able to do so.
Once successful portfolio companies mature, venture
funds generally exit their positions in those companies by taking them public through an initial public
offering (IPO) or by selling them to presumably larger organizations (acquisition, or trade sale). This then
lets the venture fund distribute the proceeds to
investors, raise a new fund for future investment, and
invest in the next generation of companies. This chapter considers each type of exit separately.
On the market valuation placed on these IPOs at the
offer price, 2012 was a very good year. The 49 IPOs
had a valuation of $122.3 billion. This is the highest
amount since 1986. What is quite striking (Fig 5.03),
is the huge gap between median and mean (average)
valuation of almost seven times! This suggests a huge
outlier effect created by the very large IPOs that succeeded.
IPOs in 2012 were a mixed bag at best. On the one
hand, the number of venture-backed companies going
public actually fell from 2011 from 51 to 49. But the
dollars raised in those initial public offerings more
than doubled from $10.7 billion to $21.5 billion. But
looking behind the numbers, we see that Facebook
itself raised $16.0 billion of that $21.5 billion, with a
few other high-profile IPOs looming large in the
remainder. This meant that many companies attempt-
Thomson Reuters
In 2012, the acquisition market weakened. There was
a slight decrease in the number of acquisitions, or
trade sales, of venture-backed companies. We tracked
449 acquisitions, of which we had disclosed deal
amounts for 121 of them. The sum of the disclosed
values was also down at $21.5 billion. Just over onefifth of them were acquired at 10 times or greater than
the cumulative venture capital investment in those
companies. We tracked four acquisitions at more than
$1 billion.
15
18. Industry Resources
The activity level of the U.S. venture capital industry is roughly half of what it was at the 2000-era peak. For
example, in 2000, 1053 firms each invested $5 million or more during the year. In 2012, the count was less than
half that at 522.
Venture capital under management in the United States by the end of 2012 decreased to $199.2 billion as calculated using the methodology described below. However, looking behind the numbers, we know that the industry continues to contract from the circa 2000 bubble high of $261.2 billion
The slight downtick in firms and capital managed in 2012 perhaps understates a consolidating trend. The average venture capital firm shrunk to 7.0 principals per firm from 7.4 in 2011. The corresponding drop in headcount to under 6,000 principals is almost one-third lower than 2007 levels. This meant that there was an
increase in the average amount of capital managed by each principal. It is possible going forward, that the
number of principals per firm will increase as the number of firms decreases. This is because the bulk of the
money being raised today is being raised by larger, specialty, and boutique firms. For our purposes here, we
define a principal to be someone who goes to portfolio company board meetings. That is, deal partners would
be included and firm CFOs would not be included.
Geographic location of the largest venture firms is quite concentrated. California domiciled firms manage
47.1% of the industry’s capital although these firms may be actively investing in other states and countries. This
concentration has been consistent for several years and may increase going forward, given the movement of
some east coast funds westward. Taken together, the top five states (California, Massachusetts, New York,
Connecticut, and Illinois) hold 81.4% of total venture capital in this country.
METHODOLOGY
Historically we have calculated industry size using a
“rolling eight years of fundraising” proxy for capital
managed, number of funds, number of firms, etc. The
number of firms in existence will vary on a rolling
eight-year basis as firms raise new funds or do not
raise funds for more than eight years. Currently, we
know the industry is consolidating, but the eight- year
model now includes fund vintage years 2005-2012.
However, through 2012, the rolling eight year
methodology belies this contraction because the very
slow fundraising years of 2002-2004 were rolling out
of the calculation.
Under this methodology, we estimate that there are
currently 841 firms with limited partnerships “in
existence.” To clarify, this is actually stating that there
are 841 firms that have raised a venture capital fund
in the last eight years. In reality, fewer firms are actually making new investments in 2012.
added a column to the table to report the number of
independent and corporate venture groups actually
investing $5 million or more in a given year. These
522 firms are less than half the level of 2000. We
expect this statistic to fall further going forward.
For this publication, we are primarily counting the
number of firms with limited partnerships and are
excluding other types of investment vehicles. From
that description, it may appear that the statistics for
total industry resources may be underestimated.
However, this must be balanced with the fact that capital under management by captive and evergreen
funds is difficult to compare equitably to typical limited partnerships with fixed lives. For this analysis
only, the firms counted for capital under management
include firms with fixed-life partnerships and venture
capital funds they raised. If a firm raised both buyout
and venture capital funds, only the venture funds
would be counted in the calculation of venture capital
under management.
To better report the actual number of active firms, we
Thomson Reuters
17
19. National Venture Capital Association
Venture capital under management can be a complex
statistic to estimate. Indeed, capital under management reported by firms can differ from firm to firm as
there’s not one singular definition. For example, some
firms include only cumulative committed capital, others may include committed capital plus capital gains,
and still other firms define it as committed capital
after subtracting liquidations. To complicate matters,
it is difficult to compare these totals to European private equity firms, which include capital gains as part
of their capital under management measurements.
have completed their life cycle. Typically, venture
capital firms have a stated 10-year fixed life span,
except for life science funds, which are often established as 12-year funds. Figure 1.08 shows the reality
of fund life. Thomson Reuters calculates capital under
management as the cumulative amount committed to
funds on a rolling eight-year basis. Current capital
under management is calculated by taking the capital
under management calculation from the previous
year, adding in the current year’s funds’ commitments,
and subtracting the capital raised eight years prior.
For purposes of the analysis in this publication, we
have tried to clarify the industry definition of capital
under management as the cumulative total of committed capital less liquidated funds or those funds that
For this analysis, Thomson Reuters classifies venture
capital firms using four distinct types: private independent firms, financial institutions, corporations,
and other entities. ‘Private independent’ firms are
Figure 1.01
Capital Under Management
U.S. Venture Funds ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
350
300
($ Billions)
250
200
150
100
50
198
5
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
1992
1993
199
4
199
5
199
6
1997
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
0
Year
18
Thomson Reuters
20. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
made up of independent private and public firms
including both institutionally and non-institutionally
funded firms and family groups. ‘Financial institutions’ refers to firms that are affiliates and/or subsidiaries of investment banks and non-investment
bank financial entities, including commercial banks
and insurance companies. The ‘corporations’ classification includes venture capital subsidiaries and affiliates of industrial corporations. In 2013, we will modify the methodology to reflect virtually all direct corporate investment because many of the corporate venture investors do not operate out of a separate fund or
group. The capital under management statistics
reported in this section consist primarily of venture
capital firms investing through limited partnerships
with fixed commitment levels and fixed lives and do
not include non-vintage “evergreen funds” or true
captive corporate industrial investment groups without fixed commitment levels. The term ‘evergreen
funds’ refers to funds that have a continuous infusion
of capital from a parent organization, as opposed to
the fixed life and commitment level of a closed-end
venture capital fund.
Figure 1.02
Total Capital Under Management
By Firm Type 1985 to 2012 ($ Millions)
1985 1986
1987 1988
P vate Independent 11,636 14,574 17,299 18,607
Pri
Financial Institutions 3,368 3,508 3,442 3,178
Corporations
1,739 1,709 2,062 2,148
Other
857 909 897 867
Total
1989 1990
22,112
2,714
2,095
779
22,632
2,802
2,142
725
1991
1992
1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
21,805 22,557 25,199 28,528 33,417
2,392 2,220 2,484 2,924 3,758
2,086 2,211 1,526 1,573 1,345
618 313 191 275 380
40,235
5,123
2,032
409
51,877
7,209
2,348
665
76,398
10,382
3,245
3
875
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
120,221
15,466
6,797
1,116
187,475
23,454
11,604
1,467
221,105
24,975
12,787
2,134
221,634 225,208 233,976 242,466
24,453 23,558 22,277 21,634
12,766 12,717 12,245 12,044
2,347 2,317 2,302 2,055
255,714 238,766
18,991 14,384
11,964 8,828
2,031 1,822
194,698
6,263
4,171
1,469
171,713
4,865
2,979
843
175,980
5,266
3,458
3,997
2011
2012
183,482 180,936
9,541 9,670
4,483 4,497
3,995 4,098
17,600 20,700 23,700 24,800 27,700 28,300 26,900 27,300 29,400 33,300 38,900 47,800 62,100 90,900 143,600 224,000 261,000 261,200 263,800 270,800 278,200 288,700 263,800 206,600 180,400 188,700 201,500 199,200
Figure 1.03
Distribution of Firms
By Capital Managed 2012
155
160
139
125
140
112
111
120
91
100
80
60
47
60
40
20
10
00
+
50
010
00
25
050
0
10
025
0
-10
0
50
25
-5
0
10
-2
5
010
0
Capital Under Management ($ Millions)
This chart shows capital committed to U.S. venture firms in active funds. While much of the capital is managed
by larger firms, of the 841 firms at the end of 2012, roughly 60% of them (504) managed $100 million or less. By
comparison, just 47 firms managed active funds totaling more than $1 billion.
Thomson Reuters
19
21. National Venture Capital Association
Figure 1.04
Fund and Firm Analysis
Fund
Vintage
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total
Cumulative
Funds
631
707
810
887
979
1,037
1,075
1,147
1,244
1,342
1,497
1,647
1,859
2,096
2,433
2,849
3,092
3,174
3,282
3,447
3,622
3,805
4,019
4,205
4,313
4,439
4,599
4,716
Total
Cumulative
Firms
323
353
388
406
435
451
458
478
509
542
607
668
760
839
966
1,109
1,191
1,208
1,260
1,328
1,398
1,474
1,558
1,621
1,664
1,725
1,787
1,828
Total
Cumulative
Capital ($B)
20
23.4
27.4
30.8
35.8
38.3
40.5
44.1
49.4
56.7
66.2
78.6
97.9
129.2
184.1
268.2
310.4
318
330
349.4
376.2
417.9
447.9
474.8
490.7
506.7
531.5
548.6
Existing
Funds
532
590
670
700
727
716
639
601
613
635
687
760
880
1,059
1,358
1,702
1,848
1,832
1,785
1,800
1,763
1,709
1,586
1,356
1,221
1,265
1,317
1,269
Firms That Raised
Funds in the Last
8 Vintage Years
294
324
353
365
380
383
360
352
370
385
424
469
541
613
733
864
920
918
948
984
1009
1019
1010
879
818
844
868
841
Capital
Managed
($B)
17.6
20.7
23.7
24.8
27.7
28.3
26.9
27.3
29.4
33.3
38.9
47.8
62.1
90.9
143.6
224
261
261.2
263.8
270.8
278.2
288.7
263.8
206.6
180.4
188.7
201.5
199.2
Avg
Fund Size
($M)
33.1
35.1
35.4
35.4
38.1
39.5
42.1
45.4
48.0
52.4
56.6
62.9
70.6
85.8
105.7
131.6
141.2
142.6
147.8
150.4
157.8
168.9
166.3
152.4
147.7
149.2
153.0
157.0
Avg
Firm Size
($M)
59.9
63.9
67.1
67.9
72.9
73.9
74.7
77.6
79.5
86.5
91.7
101.9
114.8
148.3
195.9
259.3
283.7
284.5
278.3
275.2
275.7
283.3
261.2
235
220.5
223.6
232.1
236.9
Firms
Actively
Investing
92
113
112
118
115
100
80
104
93
110
185
249
342
408
713
1053
759
534
505
575
558
570
627
603
462
509
545
522
The correct interpretation of this chart is that since the beginning of the industry to the end of 2012, 1,828 firms had been founded and 4,716 funds had
been raised. Those funds totaled $548.6 billion. At the end of 2012, 841 firms as calculated using our eight-year methodology managed 1,269 individual
funds, with each fund typically being a separate limited partnership. Capital under management, again calculated using a rolling eight years of fundraising, by those firms at the end of 2012 was $199.2 billion. However, only 522 independent and corporate venture groups invested at least $5 million in
MoneyTree™ deals in 2012.
Figure 1.05
Principals Information
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
No.
Principals
Per Firm
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.0
7.4
7.0
Estimated
Industry
Principals
8,665
7,293
6,760
6,328
6,231
5,887
Figure 1.06
Top 5 States
By Capital Under Management 2012
Avg Mgt
Per Principal
($M)
30.0
28.3
26.4
25.7
28.6
33.8
State
CA
MA
NY
CT
IL
Total*
($ Millions)
93,814.8
34,482.3
21,378.0
8,051.2
4,369.0
162,095.4
*Total includes above 5 states states only
*Total includes above 5 only
The correct interpretation of this chart is that at year end 2012, there were 5,887
principals (people who go to board meetings) in the industry. A principal on average manages $33.8 million and the average firm is made up of 7.0 principals, down
from 7.4 principals a year earlier.
20
Thomson Reuters
23. National Venture Capital Association
Figure 1.08
Life of IT Funds in Years
Life of IT Funds
In Years
<= 10
11-12
13-14
15-16
17-18
>=19
% of
Funds
7%
20%
27%
22%
14%
10%
Source: Adams Street Partners, based on 2010 analysis of dissolved funds.
This chart tracks the year in which a 10-year fund is, in fact, dissolved.
These later periods are referred to as “out years.” Historically, after the 10th year, only a few companies remain in the portfolios that typically do not have
huge upside potential. But the slow pace of exits in recent years has resulted in a number of good, mature companies remaining in portfolios well past
the nominal 10-year mark. Life science funds tend to have lives two years longer than typical technology funds. In preparing this chart, partial years are
rounded to the nearest whole year. So 10.4 years would round to 10 years, and 10.5 years would round up to 11 years. The median life span of a fund in
this analysis is 14.17 years.
22
Thomson Reuters
24. Capital Commitments
New commitments to venture capital funds in the United States increased for the second year in a row, which
follows four years of declines. In 2012, commitments totaling $20.1 billion were made to 183 funds. This is
roughly two-thirds of the annual levels seen in 2005-2007 and approximately one-fifth of the annual amount
raised at the bubble peak.
When you look behind the 2012 capital commitments at the specific funds being raised, the 10 largest funds
represent 48% of the capital raised, with 173 funds raising the other 52%.
This is the sixth consecutive year in which more money was invested by the industry than raised in new commitments. That has been the case in 11 of the past 13 years. While this is not a true apples-to-apples comparison, it does explain the industry’s strong interest in raising additional funds in 2013 and beyond. The narrow
success of recent IPO and acquisition markets has not enabled most firms to pay out sufficient distributions to
their investors to begin raising another fund. For the vast majority of firms, raising additional capital right now
is very difficult.
For the seventh year in a row, the top fundraising states were California and Massachusetts. This year,
Connecticut replaces New York in the third position. California, with its venture firms raising $13.7 billion,
holds the top spot for the tenth year in a row. Firms domiciled in the top five fundraising states in 2012 gathered 88% of the dollars, compared with 91% in 2011, 88% in 2010 and 82% in 2009.
Please note that the state of fund domicile matters less than has been true historically. Much of the money is
managed by large, national funds that tend to be domiciled in any of several states with a broad geographic
investing footprint. Readers should not interpret capital available to entrepreneurs in a given state as being
limited to the capital raised in that state.
Venture capital fundraising typically makes up 20-25% of private equity fundraising. But in 2012, it represented 16% of total, down from 22% in 2011.
Methodology
figure 1.04). The data in this chapter is by calendar
year and incrementally measures how much in new
commitments funds raised during the calendar year.
As defined by Thomson Reuters, capital commitments,
also known as fundraising, are firm capital commitments to private equity/venture capital limited partnerships by outside investors. For purposes of these statistics, the terms “capital commitments,” “fundraising,”
and “fund closes” are used interchangeably. There are
three data sources for tracking capital commitments:
(1) SEC filings that are regularly monitored by our
research staff, (2) surveys of the industry routinely conducted by Thomson Reuters, and (3) verified industry
press and press releases from venture firms.
Consider, for example, a venture capital firm that
announces a $200 million fund in late 2010, raises
$75 million in 2011, and subsequently raises the
remaining $125 million in 2012. In this chapter, nothing would be reflected in 2010, $75 million would be
counted in 2011, and $125 million would be counted
in 2012. Assuming it started investing and made its
first capital call in 2012, the entire fund would then be
considered to be a 2012 vintage year fund.
Capital commitments are stated on either (1) a calendar-year basis when committed (for example, throughout this chapter) or (2) a vintage-year basis which is
designated once the fund starts investing (for example,
Note that fund commitments presented in this publication do not include those corporate captive venture capital funds that are funded by a corporate parent, which
do not typically raise capital from outside investors.
Thomson Reuters
23
27. National Venture Capital Association
Figure 2.04
Top 5 States
By Venture Capital Committed 2012
No. of
Funds
State
California
Massachusetts
Connecticut
New York
North Carolina
Sub-Total
Remaining States
Total
64
17
4
21
5
111
72
183
Committed
($Mil)
13,665.3
1,409.7
1,388.0
757.7
472.0
17,692.7
2,373.1
20,065.9
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
-
Venture Capital
Buyout and Mezzannine Capital
198
5
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
($ Billions)
Figure 2.05
Private Equity
Annual Commitment ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
Year
26
Thomson Reuters
28. Investments
Measuring industry activity with the total dollars invested in a given year shows that the industry
has remained generally in the $20 billion to $30 billion range since 2002. In 2012, $26.7 billion was
invested in 3,143 companies. This is less than 2011 totals and greater than 2010 totals. The number
of first-time fundings likewise was less than 2011 and greater than 2010. Further parsing the data
shows an increasing portion of the investment dollars going to California companies.
Sectors
Software was the leading sector in 2012, receiving 31%
of the total dollars. The second largest sector was
Biotechnology which fell to roughly half that amount at
15.4% of total investment The continued interest in
Clean Technology investing brought the Industrial/Energy sector to 10.5% of the total. Medical Devices
rounded out the top four sectors at 9.4%.
The life sciences share of the venture capital investment dollars decreased in 2012 to its lowest level
since 2002. In 2012, 15.4% of the money went into
Biotechnology, 9.4% into Medical Devices, and 1.2%
into Healthcare Services, totaling 26.0%. This is
down from the 33.1% combined share in 2009.
This recent downward life sciences trend is very visible when just looking at first fundings. In 2012, only
149 life science (the three sectors combined) companies received first funding. This is 12.7% of the total.
As recently as 2006, the 294 first fundings of life science companies made up 23.0% of total first fundings.
Among first fundings, Software led the way with 441
companies getting their initial venture capital rounds.
This is more than one-third of the total number of first
fundings. The nearest sector to Software was Media
and Entertainment with 174 first fundings.
Stages and First-Time Fundings
Seed stage companies received 3% of total dollars in
2012, with early stage, expansion, and later stage
companies roughly splitting the remaining share.
More than one-third of the capital went to expansionstage companies. But it is worth looking more closely at those statistics.
Thomson Reuters
As has been the case for several years, attention has
been focused on the two ends of the spectrum.
Looking at deal counts, 2012 actually saw the highest
percentage of seed- and early-stage deals since at least
1985 (51.8% of total deals). This certainly would
challenge the suggestion that the industry’s attention
is single-focused on later-stage companies. That said,
the 22.4% of deals going to later-stage companies is
also toward the top end of the historical range. There
remains a record number of companies in portfolios
in the later stage of development that in most other
positions in the business cycle would have already
gone public or otherwise been acquired.
With the rule of thumb that a healthy venture capital
industry invests in 1,000-1,300 new companies each
year, the 1,174 first fundings in 2012 is very much in
that range. Not surprisingly, 81% of those first round
investments were made at the seed and early stage.
Geographical Spread Across the United
States
The year 2012 provided an interesting contrast in geographic dispersion. While 53% of all the investment
dollars went to California-based portfolio companies,
a record for MoneyTree™, companies in 48 states and
DC received financing, also a MoneyTree™ record
high. That said, the five largest states (California,
Massachusetts, New York, Washington and Texas)
received 78% of all the dollars invested nationally.
This compares to 2011, when California companies
received a then-record 51.2% of the dollars. That year,
companies in a record 47 states and DC received venture capital funding. Together, the top five states
(California, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and
Illinois) received 77% of the total dollars.
27
29. National Venture Capital Association
California-domiciled venture capital firms made
investments in 39 states in 2012. Approximately 49%
of all the money invested in California came from
California-domiciled firms. Conversely, Californiabased firms concentrated 71% of their investment
power within the state.
Corporate Venture Group Involvement
The number and reach of corporate venture capital
groups increased in 2012. These groups provided
8.2% of the venture capital invested by all venture
groups. They were involved in 15.2% of the deals the highest level in four years. Going forward, all
signs suggest that these groups are becoming more
involved alongside traditional venture firms in deals,
as well as initiating corporate venture group syndicates to do deals in lieu of, or in advance of, investment rounds by traditional venture firms.
28
Methodology
As calculated by Thomson Reuters, venture capital
investment data are derived from several sources.
Primarily, survey information is obtained from the
quarterly survey that drives the MoneyTree Report™
from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National
Venture Capital Association based on data from
Thomson Reuters. This is the official industry database
of venture capital investment. Secondly, Thomson
Reuters obtains data from SEC filings that are regularly monitored by our research staff. Finally, publicly
available sources such as press releases and trade publications are used.
For detailed information on which transactions qualify as MoneyTree deals and are therefore counted in
this chapter, please refer to Appendix B.
Thomson Reuters
30. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Figure 3.01
Venture Capital Investments ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
120
($ Billions)
100
80
60
40
20
198
5
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
0
Year
Figure 3.02
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
By Industry Group
All Investments
Industry Group
Information Technology
Medical/Health/Life Science
Non-High Technology
Total
# Companies
2,130
649
364
3,143
# Deals
2,480
818
425
3,723
Initial Investments
Investment
Amt ($Bil)
16.5
6.8
3.4
26.7
# Companies
870
148
156
1,174
# Deals
870
148
156
1,174
Investment
Amt ($Bil)
3.0
0.7
0.4
4.1
Figure 3.03
Venture Capital Investments
Top 5 States in 2012
State
California
Massachusetts
New York
Washington
Texas
Total*
# Companies
1,280
326
287
101
134
2,128
# Deals
1,532
414
331
117
159
2,553
Amt
Invested ($Bil)
14.1
3.1
1.9
0.9
0.9
20.9
*Total includes top 5 states only
Thomson Reuters
29
31. National Venture Capital Association
Figure 3.04
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Industry Sector by Dollars Invested
Telecommunications 2%
Other
0.2%
Biotechnology
15%
Business Products
and Services 0.4%
Computers and
Peripherals 2%
Consumer Products
and Services 5%
Electronics/
Instrumentation 1%
Financial Services 1%
Healthcare Services 1%
Software 31%
Semiconductors
3%
Retailing/
Distribution 2%
Networking and
Equipment 1%
Medical Devices
and Equipment 9%
Industrial/Energy 10%
IT Services 7%
Media and
Entertainment 7%
Figure 3.05
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Stage By Dollars Invested
Seed 3%
Later Stage 32%
Early Stage 30%
Expansion 35%
30
Thomson Reuters
32. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Figure 3.06
Amount of Capital Invested By State in 2012
($ Millions)
61
NH
932
574
WA
WA
6
15
MT
MT
124
101
OR
OR
15
15
ID
ID
7
NV
15
NV
14,129
CA
2
7
ND
ND
0
SD
WY
WY
95
WI
23
5
84
IA
IA
304
178
UT
UT
111
212
AZ
AZ
468
564
CO
CO
46
8
KS
KS
35
7
NM
NM
286
OH
84
IN
429 NJ
11
LA
931
TX
TX
18
9 DE
DE
169 NC
87 TN
10
0
MS
MS
85 RI
158 CT
15
VW 372 VA
23
KY
5
AR
3,068 MA
518
PA
AR
645
AK
AK
570
IL
21
24
MO
MO
34
OK
1,857
NY
232
MI
WI
11
NE
NE
13
ME
4
VT
243
263
MN
MN
302
265
GA
GA
23
43
AL
AL
277
280 MD
MD
6 DC
39
SC
203
FL
GU
17
HI
HI
PR
VI
Figure 3.07
Number of Companies Invested in By State in 2012
8
12
NH
NH
101
WA
3
1
MT
MT
24
OR
4
ID
1
2
ND
ND
1
SD
WY
WY
12
WI
WI
1
IA
5
NE
1,280
CA
37
31
UT
UT
13
AZ
85
56
CO
CO
9
15
KS
KS
7
OK
12
12
NM
NM
134
94
TX
TX
AK
8
12
MO
76
IL
41
MI
5
KY
3
2
MS
MS
6
8
AL
AL
44
38
GA
GA
12 RI
38 CT
49 NJ
2
WV
62
VA
5
6
DE
DE
57
50
MD
25
DC
MD
5
SC
31
FL
3
2
HI
HI
MA
154
PA
33 NC
30 TN
1
AR
AR
4
LA
51
44
OH
OH
14
IN
MO
250
326 MA
287
NY
9
NE
4
NV
5
ME
45
VT
VT
26
33
MN
MN
GU
1 PR
VI
Thomson Reuters
31