Docstoc

The Maple Fund Cleveland_ OH

Document Sample
The Maple Fund Cleveland_ OH Powered By Docstoc
					                            Mark Brandt
THE MAPLE               Managing Partner

     FUND
Investing in Emerging
        Technologies        March 3, 2005




                                            1
 Rich in Gov Funded Research
                                        R&D: $25 Billion
                                        % of U.S. : 10%




           R&D: $51 Billion
           % of U.S.: 20%


                              R&D: $47 Billion
                              % of U.S.: 18%
       R&D: $14 Billion
       % of U.S.: 6%

Total US 256BB                       Source: NSF Data 2003


                                                             2
Poor in Exposure to Venture Dollars
                                             VC: $3.2 Billion
                                             % of U.S.: 15%




   VC: $7.7 Billion
   % of U.S.: 43%


                             VC: $1.0 Billion
                             % of U.S.: 5%

                                      3.5x more VC$ goes to Ca
  Total US 18BB                       1.5x more VC$ goes to Ma
          VC: $1.1 Billion
          % of U.S.: 6%            Source: Thompson Venture Economics 2003


                                                                             3
Focus: Technology Centers of Excellence
(Research funding in MM$)
                       Cornell .     504   . 16th
                 Northwestern .      328   . 29th       12 Targets = 5.7bb
                       Purdue .      347   . 27th
                                                             5.8x MIT
                          Case .     224   . 56th
                                                           9x Stanford
                        Illinois .   785   . 4th
                                                             2.2x Cal
                    Wisconsin .      721   . 7th
                     Michigan .      749   . 6th     Entire West Coast = 5.4bb <
                                                          12 Targets = 5.7bb
              Carnegie Mellon .      196   . 61st
                    Minnesota .      508   . 15th
                    Pittsburgh .     513   . 14th
                    Ohio State .     416   . 22nd
    University of Texas System .     387   . -----
     And for comparison / MIT.       994   . 3rd
                      Stanford .     639   . 9th
                            Cal .    2.6   . 1st
                                                              Source: Autm 2003


                                                                                   4
R&D in Ohio
Examples of University Expenditures (1)

(1)       Ohio-State - $416M/22nd (universities),
(2)       Case Western Reserve $224M/56th (universities),
(3)       University of Cincinnati - $132M/78th (university),
(4)       Cleveland Clinic – $109M/12th (hospitals),
(5)       University of Akron - $48
(6)       Ohio University - $37M,
(7)       (*) Others…


•         2002 Research Expenditures by Ohio Universities -
          $1.1B or 3% of the country (2)




    (1) Autm FY 2002 Survey;   (2)National Science Foundation/SRS, Survey of R&D Expenditures, FY 2002   5
Venture Capital in Ohio
                Ohio Ranks 22nd

Midwest Comparables:
Michigan = 104M, Illinois = 307M, Wisconsin = 104M,
Minnesota = 204M, Indiana = 23M, Missouri = 120M
Major States:
Massachusetts = 2.5B, California =7.6B,
Pennsylvania = 539M                                   $93M


           Investments in Ohio

•Investments in Medical Devices, Software,
Telecommunications, and a few in manufacturing.
• Lacking Investments in Cleantech, Energy,
Pharmaceuticals and Electronics.




  2004 NVCA Yearbook                                         6
 Nanotech’s Future in Ohio
1.        21 VC investments made to companies in Ohio for 2003
        –    Less than Pennsylvania, Chicago, Minnesota, and Missouri.
        –    More than Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

2.        Rankings
        –    Lux Research Ranks it 29th
        –    SmallTimes Ranks it 10th

3.          What Ohio can do to foster Nanotech
        –      Support entrepreneurship programs inside our universities.
        –      Smart Valley in Ohio could possibly be created.
        –      Invest in those that will bring and develop companies in Ohio.




     2004 NVCA Yearbook                                                         7
Economic Development
                                 1st Fund:
1.    $100M Private Individual Investment,
2.    Later – 7 to15 Venture Funds are closed,
3.    Afterwards, 20-30 investments in Ohio with $10M-$25M put in each deal over
      their lifetime.
3b.   1/5 of the VC Funds investments being located in Ohio,
3c.   20-30 deals would cumulatively add between $200M- $1000M respectively
      of economic development to Ohio.


                                 2nd Fund:
1.    $200M Public Investment,
2.    Later - 7 to15 Venture Funds are closed,
3.    Afterwards, 30-50 investments with $10M-$25M put in each deal over their
      lifetime,
3b.   1/4th of the VC Funds investments being located in Ohio,
3c.   40 to 50 deals would cumulatively add between $400M - $1250M
      respectively of economic development to OH .




                                                                                   8
NanoBiotechnology
• Better drug delivery



• Natural Mimicry of Nature



• Point to Point Diagnostics



                               9
The Maple Fund
About Us:
  – Cleveland Based Seed Fund – We come in early
  – Emerging Tech focus
  – Co-invest with tier one coastal funds
  – Source deals though out the Midwest (Purdue and
    Cornell) but would love to do more in Ohio
  – Rob Miles/ Mark Ratner partners

Created Economic Development:
      • Say YES! to Cleveland
      • The Nano Network




                                                      10

				
DOCUMENT INFO