Israel, Europe Compete for VC


VCs love doing business in Israel, but most of their money goes to Europe.
Source: Red Herring October 17, 2005 Issue

When venture capitalist Kaj Erik Relander traveled to Tel Aviv three years ago to conduct due diligence on a potential investment, he got a surprise when he arrived at his hotel. The CEO of the computer security company, who was completing his annual military service obligation in the West Bank, was waiting in the lobby in full military uniform with an Uzi slung over his shoulder.

After discussing the business plan, Mr. Relander, a partner in Accel Venture’s London office, casually asked the entrepreneur what he did that day. “‘We broke up five bomb factories and killed three, four terrorists,’” recalls Mr. Relander. “I thought to myself: Whatever he meets in the corporate world can’t possibly be more daunting.”

Impressed by the true grit and entrepreneurial spirit of Israeli tech executives and the country’s technological innovations and business-friendly environment, Accel and other U.S. VC firms are flocking to Israel, sometimes to the detriment of Europe.

So where is the gap?

Accel’s Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) fund, for example, does 40 percent of its deals in Israel and 40 percent in the United Kingdom, which leaves only 20 percent for the entire European Continent. The four-year-old EMEA fund’s track record speaks for itself: two exits so far in Israel and none in Europe, says Mr. Relander, a native of Finland and former CEO of Finnish telecom Sonera.

“The question is, where is Europe going?” he asks.

“It really boils down to the fundamental political environment, whether it decides that having a thriving entrepreneurial sector is good for society, and how much government and the state has to be involved in governing it.”

The malaise about entrepreneurship in Europe is the opposite of investor attitudes toward Israel, which has worked hard to overcome the reticence of foreign investors to do business where terrorism and political violence are a part of the landscape. In fact, Israel gets such good press for its investment climate that many U.S. and European venture capitalists believe that deal flow and exits are better in Israel than in Europe outside the U.K.

But the numbers don’t support this perception. The amount of equity invested in information technology companies in Europe was 3.5 times that invested in Israel; the number of IT investment transactions in Europe was 5.3 times the number in Israel between the first quarter of 1999 and the second quarter of this year, according to VentureSource data analyzed by London’s TLcom Capital Partners.

Of course, Israel has a population of just 6.2 million, compared to the European Union’s 470 million. For its size, there’s no doubt that Israel outperforms any country in Europe as a center of entrepreneurial innovation. This year, one-fifth of the private companies on Red Herring’s Europe 100 list were Israeli, versus 33 from the U.K. and 10 from France.

While Israel is clearly a vibrant market, Europe surprisingly fares better when it comes to IPOs and acquisitions, according to TLcom’s analysis of a VentureSource database of exit transactions between January 2003 and June 2005. Of a total of 39 information and communications technology venture-backed IPOs between 2003 and the first quarter of 2005, 34 were European and only five Israeli, according to the TLcom analysis.

The same study ranks the top 18 European and Israel trade sales (mergers or acquisitions) by value from January 2003 to the first quarter of this year. Only four of the 18 are Israeli, and only two of those four—System Management Arts, a network and systems management tools company that storage leader EMC bought in February for $260 million, and P-Cube, a connectivity and communications tools company sold to Cisco in October 2004 for $200 million—make the top 10.

When acquisitions from January 2003 to the first quarter of 2005 are measured by return multiples, only two of the top 25 are Israeli, and neither is in the top 10. “If you invest in Europe, you are more likely to get a return and a better return on the capital,” says Colin Watts, a partner at TLcom.

A Better Sales Pitch

So why does Israel get all the buzz? When it comes to marketing itself as a hot tech market and an attractive place to invest, Israel wins hands down. Venture capitalist Johan Pontin, a native of Sweden now living in Boston, has invested in both European and Israeli companies. He recalls how he and a group of U.S. venture capitalists were recently invited to Israel by the government; they were given the red-carpet treatment and access to the country’s top politicians.

“We were told we would be given a special tax break if we invested, and it was made clear that the government was adjusting its fiscal policy to be friendly to venture capital,” says Mr. Pontin, a founding partner in Pod Holding, a private-equity firm based in Boston and Stockholm that invests in information and communications technology companies. “As an investor I find that highly attractive. Compare that to countries like France and Germany. What are they doing? Nothing.”

France actually is trying to make itself a more attractive place for tech startups. It has, for example, adopted legislation that permits independent small- and medium-sized businesses younger than eight years old that allocate at least 15 percent of their budgets to R&D to be fully exempt from corporate taxes, achieve full and uncapped capital gains, give a tax exemption to investors, and receive relief for national insurance contributions for all researchers and R&D managers.

But impressions count. France lacks the reputation and the buzz of Israel, and it has the additional burden of trying to undo a reputation for high social charges, inflexible labor laws, and horrendous bureaucracy. It is no accident, say observers, that most of France’s successful tech entrepreneurs have fled the country.

From the start, Israel created the right environment for venture capital, says Chemi Peres, co-founder and managing general partner at Pitango Ventures and a pioneer of the Israeli venture industry.

Some 133 foreign VC firms invested in more than one Israeli tech company in Israel between 2000 and 2005, including well-known Silicon Valley firms such as Sequoia, Lightspeed, and Greylock, according to the Israel Venture Capital & Private Equity Journal. Tech investments now total about $1.5 billion a year vs. $8.9 billion in Europe. Israeli VC funds provide about 50 percent of investment money and focus mainly on early stage; the rest comes from foreign VCs who focus on B-round or later-stage companies.

VCs also see Israel’s strengths in communications, security, and medical devices. Europe, meanwhile, has no clear leadership role in any particular tech space, with the exception of wireless. Nokia is the No. 1 handset maker; Symbian makes the No. 1 operating system, and Europe is home to three of the world’s largest and most successful mobile operators, Vodafone, T-Mobile, and Orange.

Europe has also pioneered disruptive “free” technologies such as open-source software and VoIP, but many of the founders and the technologies have ended up in the United States. Linus Torvalds, the Finnish founder of Linux, now lives and works in the U.S., Germany’s SuSE was swallowed by Novell, and Luxembourg-based Skype was acquired by eBay in September for $2.6 billion.

Technology continues to be a sideline rather than a major focus in countries like France and Germany, say critics. In contrast, Israel has “had a very unique focus on innovation since the inception of the country, mainly on the military side, to compensate for the lack of other resources,” says Mr. Peres. “From day one, we bet on technology.”

Military Subsidies

The Israeli government has indirectly subsidized the tech sector by pouring tens of billions of dollars into defense R&D, and then allowing entrepreneurs to adapt for commercial use—free of charge—intellectual property developed by the military, says Yoram Oron, general partner at Vertex Venture Capital and the current president of the Israeli Venture Capital Association (IVCA).

This has led to the creation of successful Israeli ventures such as Checkpoint, an Internet security company, and Gilat Satellite Networks, which specializes in satellite-based communications networks. The third phase, which is happening now, is the free flow of intellectual property from the military to the private sector, says Ran Shahor, a general partner at Star Venture Capital Management, which invests in companies in Israel, the U.S., and Europe.

A large number of Israel’s tech entrepreneurs come from army units that focus on high-tech R&D, says Mr. Shahor, the former Military Secretary of the Ministry of Defense who spent 26 years in the Israeli military.

The founders of four of the 12 Israeli tech investments Star Ventures has made in the last two years came out of the same army R&D unit, says Mr. Shahor. “When young talent comes out of this unit they are trained to manage projects in short development cycles, with deep end-user involvement, and on a large scale—making them perfect founders for the high-tech industry,” he says.

Another key ingredient to success, he says, is connected to the national attitude—a certain cockiness that he describes as a lack of respect for authority and overt self-confidence. “If you show a good device to a German engineer he will say he is very impressed. Show the same device to an Israeli and his immediate reaction will be, ‘I can do it better,’ regardless of whether he really is a better engineer,” says Mr. Shahor.

But it’s not just the quality of entrepreneurs that sets apart the Israeli markets from those in Europe, say local and foreign venture capitalists. It’s also the quantity.

The June issue of the Israeli Venture Capital & Private Equity Journal lists 263 tech and life sciences companies founded by serial entrepreneurs. True, Europe has produced a few high-profile mavericks like Niklas Zennstrom, co-founder of KaZaa and Skype, but even the most stalwart defenders of the European tech market agree that Israel has far more serial entrepreneurs than all of Europe. “Risk taking is in the Israeli culture,” says Gil Forer, the London-based global director of Ernst & Young’s Venture Capital Advisory Group.

The reality of everyday life in Israel, which includes terrorist attacks and a variety of hardships, means that people live in an almost perpetual state of crisis, a perfect breeding ground for entrepreneurs, say observers.

And Europe has successful large technology companies such as Alcatel and Siemens that provide secure jobs for talented technologists, an alternative that Israelis don’t have.

Fear of Failure… and Success

And, says Israeli tech entrepreneur and investor Yossi Vardi, “In Israel, failing in an honest way is not a disgrace—if you fail it means that you have gained in experience.” In Israel, people are more willing to take risks than in Europe.

“In Germany, if you fail you are shamed; in England, it is an embarrassment. But in the U.S. and Israel, it is a badge of honor,” says Mr. Vardi. In the 1960s, he founded Advanced Technologies, which was at the time Israel’s largest software company. He went on to become the founding investor and chairman of Mirabilis, the creator of the popular Internet communications program ICQ, which was purchased by AOL in 1998 for a reported $400 million. In Israel, financial success such as Mr. Vardi’s is celebrated. The problem with Europe, says Accel’s Mr. Relander, is that neither success nor failure is accepted.

Another important element in Israel’s favor is that the tech sector there, like Silicon Valley, is a close-knit community. “You are either a friend or an enemy of everybody,” says Mr. Vardi.

The combination of a compact local community and close ties to the U.S. market and U.S. investors means that there is a lower chance that two companies in the same region will try to reinvent the wheel at the same time, says Sven Lingjaerde, a Geneva-based founding partner of Vision Capital and a founder of the European Tech Tour, a nonprofit association that has linked foreign venture capitalists with entrepreneurs in Europe and in Israel.

The same is not true in Europe’s fragmented market. In Europe, “there are 2,300 tech companies, and when you sprinkle them around the map of Europe you end up with lots of companies reinventing the wheel everywhere,” says Mr. Lingjaerde.

Large European countries have somewhat of an advantage with a large local market, but that can also translate into a disadvantage. Entrepreneurs in these countries often don’t think globally from day one; Israelis do because they have no choice.

Europe has the edge over Israel in one area: biopharma. While Israel is strong in medical devices, biotech has remained under-funded, says Batsheva Elran, a partner in Medica Venture Partners, one of the largest and oldest healthcare funds in Israel. But the drought could be ending. In 2004, four drugs that stemmed from Israeli innovation—including multiple sclerosis treatments Rebif and Copaxone, Alzheimer’s treatment Exelon, and chemotherapy drug Doxil—led to over $3 billion in sales for the companies that developed the medications.

Capital Market Reforms

While Israeli startups have suffered from a lack of exits, Israeli companies actually fared better as a whole then their counterparts in Europe and the U.S. Based on TLcom’s analysis of IPO and M&A data from 2003 to the second quarter of 2005, the median exit in Israel was $34.8 million, compared to $29.5 million in Europe and $34 million in the U.S.

The data shows that Europe and Israel produce a disproportionately high number of good exits relative to the capital invested. But the market perception is distorted by the number of companies that originate in Europe and Israel, but are registered in the U.S. in an effort to improve their access to the U.S. exit markets, says TLcom’s Mr. Watts.

Both Israel and Europe share the same problem: The Nasdaq bar has been raised and Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure requirements make it much more expensive to go public in the U.S. So far, domestic exchanges have not successfully attracted young tech companies. However, Israel and some European countries are taking steps to change that.

The IVCA is working with the Tel Aviv stock exchange to develop a market for young companies to go public there, says Pitango Venture’s Mr. Peres. Rules about the distribution of shares, the amount of money to be raised, and the dilution during an IPO need to be adjusted for young tech companies, he adds.

Mr. Peres also believes that tax advantages need to be introduced to mirror those offered to technology innovation IPOs on London’s AIM exchange for small companies. AIM is proving very attractive for Israeli tech companies; last year, 14 of AIM’s 180 IPOs were Israeli companies, says Mr. Peres.

For its part, France is set to decide within the next three months whether it will offer significant tax incentives to investors in young companies that list on the French stock exchange, says Philippe Pouletty, a French serial entrepreneur and co-founder of Truffle Ventures in Paris. Without a major move to improve stock market conditions in Europe, he and others are predicting that more companies will move out of Europe.

Curing What Ails Europe

Fixing its capital markets won’t be enough, though. Europe would do well to take a leaf from Israel’s page and start becoming more business-friendly if it wants to capitalize on its innovations, say observers. “We are in a situation where a Labor prime minister in the U.K. is explaining what a market economy is to central European governments, which is a bit strange,” says Accel’s Mr. Relander.

But despite obstacles, which include tax issues, lack of a Nasdaq-like exchange, conservative take-up of information technology by businesses, and a culture that does not encourage entrepreneurship, Europe is doing better than most people give it credit for, argues Jean-Bernard Schmidt, head of Paris-based Sofinnova Partners and a former head of the European Venture Capital Association.

All it needs is a few more visible successes, such as Skype’s sale to eBay, he says.

The Skype sale follows Yahoo’s $575-million purchase of French price-comparison web site Kelkoo in March 2004. Both European companies got U.S.-sized valuations and Mr. Schmidt says he sees more deals like this in the future.

Another good sign: U.S. venture firms that never invested in Europe—such as Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Bessemer Venture Partners, and Highland Capital—are now doing deals directly in Europe. “There are two reasons why they are coming now,” says Mr. Schmidt. “They are finding that there are good deals in Europe, and they are finding in Europe better deals than they find in the U.S.”

There is evidence to support his theory. Europe and Israel have seen more IPOS with 10-times returns than has the U.S. over the last 30 months, according the VentureSource data analyzed by TLcom.

So why is it, then, that European VCs still point to the historical scarcity of high-value exits for venture-backed companies in Europe as a main cause for the disappointing performance when compared to the U.S.?

Limited partners need to get with the times, argue TLcom’s Mr. Watts and Sofinnova’s Mr. Schmidt. “The future is not just an extrapolation of the past,” says Mr. Schmidt.

The situation in Europe is improving drastically, agrees Gerry Montanus, a senior partner for 21 years in the London office of Atlas Venture, a $2.2-billion fund with offices in the U.S. and Europe.

“We now have the luxury of serial entrepreneurs, a vastly matured venture capital community, and we are starting to have big success stories,” he says, pointing to the Netherlands’ TomTom, which makes navigation systems for cars. The company had a market cap of $1.9 billion when it went public with no venture backing last June.

In the past, European startups suffered from under-funding and VCs with a too-local point of view. No more, says Mr. Montanus. More international VCs are entering the market, and whether it’s Accel, Benchmark, or Sofinnova, they all have the same ambition: build an international company. And if that requires moving a company’s headquarters to the U.S., then so be it.

In Europe, you may need to mine a little harder to get to the gold, but it’s there, says Mr. Watts. He points to Red Herring 100 company Media Lario, an Italian space and defense firm that makes mirrors for X-ray telescopes. TLcom recognized that the technology could help chip manufacturers move to the next generation of lithography, an application Media Lario had never envisioned. Intel agreed to co-invest, as did Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Switzerland’s Vision Capital came in as a secondary investor. A high-profile U.S. executive was brought in to run the company, and business is now flourishing.

“VCs here have to really roll up their sleeves,” says Mr. Watts. Not all of them do, however. Skype’s CEO has complained to the Swedish press that because he could not raise money in his home market, foreign VCs benefited most from his exit.

Waking the Sleeping Beauty

Some observers say there is reason for optimism. TLcom’s analysis shows a marked decline in the proportion of venture-backed liquidations from the first quarter of 2003 to the second quarter of 2005, particularly in Europe—an indication that venture portfolios have been cleaned up, says TLcom’s Mr. Watts.

Looking forward, he says investors agree that a significant number of high-quality European companies have made it through a very tough period and are now enjoying rapid and significant revenue growth. This includes communications companies such as Switzerland’s Esmertec, which announced its intention to go public September 16, as well as semiconductor companies like Icera (a Red Herring 100 company), which was founded by serial entrepreneur Stan Boland.

Sofinnova’s Mr. Schmidt sees a whole crop of biotech companies coming of age. And expect to see some disruptive technology emanating from Europe in spaces such as nanotech and clean energy, says Vision Capital’s Mr. Lingjaerde.

If Europe can emulate Israel and get the “food chain” right—including the business environment and the VCs, “then you can give the kiss to the sleeping beauty and get results,” says Mr. Lingjaerde.

With Israel in full battle gear and gunning for capital, Europe’s sleeping beauties had better wake up soon.

Let Your PC Do the Investing


Story location

As a stock-futures trader, George Pruitt used to spend the day hovering over his computer screen.
Now, he just stays within earshot. When his computer identifies an attractive time to buy or sell, it emits a horn blast. It does this often, including once last week while Pruitt was on the phone discussing his approach to automated trading.
Future Stock
“You hear that going off in the background? That’s saying the price of the e-mini just went up to a certain level,” said Pruitt, director of research at Futures Truth, a trading company and magazine publisher in Henderson, North Carolina. The e-mini, a futures contract that tracks the S&P 500 Index, is one of several securities the company monitors almost exclusively online.
While successful trading strategies still usually involve some subjective human analysis, traders are entrusting a growing share of the work to their PCs. Most of the time, individual investors authorize each trade before it goes through. In some cases, however, even solo investors are cobbling together systems that are 100 percent automated.
Call it the age of the machine trader. Computers have some major advantages over people in the trading game: They don’t sleep. They don’t ask for pay. And they aren’t subject to the equilibrium-killing forces of emotion, which have been known to provoke even the most disciplined human trader to abandon logic from time to time.
“They’re my partners,” said Greg Ballard, a trader based in Fort Smith, Arkansas, of his PC collection. “I make them work 24 hours a day, don’t give them vacation or anything.” They’re programmed to execute trades based on a periodically changing set of algorithms that track stock-index futures.
Ballard is among a small but growing cadre of investors who develop and program their own mathematical formulas to identify trades. Each new program, Ballard said, is subjected to months of simulated trading before it’s used to manage actual money. Ballard won’t share how the algorithms work or how much income they’ve generated over his four-year trading history, except to say they’ve been profitable.
More commonly, individual investors who use automated trading track established indicators for stocks and indexes. Ralph Cruz, co-CEO of TradeStation (TRAD), a trading platform for active traders, says the following metrics are particularly popular:

The moving average: Traders look at the mean of a stock’s closing price over a specified time frame. The particularly prevalent 10-day moving average is the mean of a stock’s closing price over the past 10 days.
Relative strength index: RSI compares the magnitude of recent gains to recent losses in an attempt to determine if a security is oversold or overbought.
Moving average convergence divergence, or MACD: This popular, fairly complex indicator compares moving averages to determine buy and sell opportunities.
All such methodologies fall under the catch-all title of technical analysis, the subject of countless books, newsletters and “how-I-got-rich” infomercial testimonials. The central idea — reducing securities markets to mathematically crunchable datasets that can be objectively analyzed — is as old as trading itself.
What’s newer is the ease and sophistication with which individuals can put such methods to work on their own behalf.
Nelson Freeburg, editor of the algorithmic trading newsletter Formula Research, estimates that millions of people worldwide use computerized systematic trading techniques today. No cumbersome barrier keeps newcomers from entering the field. A trader could probably get started, he said, with $10,000 to $15,000 dollars.
Freeburg advises novice traders to test their skills using one of a handful of sites and trading platforms that offer trading simulations, such as Fidelity’s Wealth-Lab or TradeStation. He also warns traders to be selective about the indicators they follow. When a market-timing signal becomes too widely known and implemented, it may cease to be effective.
On the New York Stock Exchange, trading is more mechanized than ever. Program trading, which NYSE defines as transactions involving the purchase or sale of baskets of 15 or more stocks, accounts for more than half of all shares swapping hands on the exchange. Such trades accounted for less than a quarter of trading volumes five years ago.
Program trading isn’t exactly robotic trading. Much of it is initiated by humans, who use automated trading systems to separate buy and sell orders into smaller batches. Even individuals who use automated trading platforms, Freeburg believes, are ill-advised to allow their computers to actually execute trades.
“I would have a little human element just to check on things before surrendering everything to an electronic algorithm,” he said, noting that computers, like the people who make them, still make errors.
Ballard, however, says he’s willing to entrust the bulk of trading responsibilities to his PCs. In the interest of reducing risk, he closes his positions at the end of every trading day, even if it entails taking a loss.
The effect of automated trading on markets is that they move faster than ever. That’s why inexperienced traders, according to Ballard, probably ought not to risk substantial sums of money before testing trading strategies for a few months.
First-timers should also be prepared to do poorly, said Cruz, who rapidly lost all his money when he and his brother began trading in the 1980s. Since then, Cruz said, he has learned to take a more disciplined approach, basing decisions on numerical analysis rather than subjective judgments.
“Typically, emotions are your worst enemy,” he said. “You don’t want to accept the fact that you made a mistake, so you let that mistake grow. One of the benefits of having a more rule-based approach is you take emotions out of your decisions.”

Israeli venture capital rises

In Q3 2005, 90 Israeli high-tech companies raised $336 million from venture investors – both local and foreign. The amount was down 13 percent from the $387 million raised by 98 companies in the previous quarter and was 23 percent lower than the $438 million raised by 113 companies in the third quarter of 2004.


Tel Aviv, Israel, November 14, 2005. The following are the findings of the Quarterly Survey
conducted by the IVC Research Center, which for more than eight years has been at the forefront of
venture capital and private equity research in Israel. This Survey, conducted with the cooperation of the
Israel Venture Association (IVA), reviews capital raised by private Israeli high-tech companies from
Israeli venture capital funds and from other investors. The Survey is based on reports from 92 venture
investors of which 57 are Israeli management companies and 35 are other – mostly foreign –
investment entities.
In Q3 2005, 90 Israeli high-tech companies raised $336 million from venture
investors – both local and foreign (Chart 1). The amount was down 13 percent from
the $387 million raised by 98 companies in the previous quarter and was 23 percent
lower than the $438 million raised by 113 companies in the third quarter of 2004.
“Despite the apparent drop,” said Efrat Zakai, Director of Research at IVC,
“capital raised in the first nine months of 2005 indicates stability in capital flow
relative to 2004 figures.” In the first nine months of 2005, capital slipped only slightly
to $1.07 billion from $1.10 billion in the same period of 2004. “For the full-year 2005
we foresee stability in investments, leading to approximately $1.4 billion in capital
raised annually” said Zakai.
The average company financing round was $3.73 million in Q3, compared with $3.94
million in the previous quarter and $3.87 million in the third quarter of 2004.
Sixty-six companies attracted more than $1 million. Of these, 15 companies raised
between $5 million and $10 million each, four companies raised between $10 million
and $20 million each and one company raised more than $20 million.
Israeli VC investments
In Q3, Israeli VCs invested $188 million in Israeli companies, compared with $163
million invested in the previous quarter and $194 million in Q3 2004. The Israeli VC
share of the total amount invested in Israeli high-tech companies rose to 56 percent,
from an average of 42 percent over the past five years.
First investments made by Israeli VCs were 41 percent of total VC investments,
which compares with 40 percent in the previous quarter and 54 percent in the third
quarter of 2004. The average First investment made by Israeli VCs in Q3 2005 was
$2.75 million, and the average Follow-on investment was $0.92 million.
For more Information:
Efrat Zakai, Director of Research:
IVC Research Center
972 -3-640-2337
Efrat@ivc-online.com
www.ivc-online.com
-2-
Ramat Aviv Tower, 5th floor, 40 Einstein St., P.O.Box 17672, Tel Aviv 61172, Israel
Tel. +972-3-640-2350 Fax. +972-3-6402351 E-mail: efrat@ivc-online.com www.ivc-online.com
Israeli VC investments in foreign companies
Israeli VCs invested $20 million in eight foreign companies during Q3 2005, down
sharply from the $30 million invested in foreign companies in the previous quarter
and $23 million invested in the third quarter of 2004. Two of the 8 investments were
First investments.
Capital raised by sector (Chart 2)
The Communications sector led capital raising in both the third quarter and the first
three quarters of 2005. Thirty-one Communications companies attracted $112 million,
33 percent of the total amount raised. The amount compares with $136 million (35
percent) in the previous quarter and $121 million (28 percent) in Q3 2004.
The Software sector followed with 16 companies raising $55 million (16.5 percent of
total capital raised). While the Software sector accounted for 18 percent of capital
raised in the first three quarters, the sector was outpaced by the Life Sciences for that
nine-month period.
Life science capital raising slowed in the third quarter to $53 million, accounting for
16 percent of total capital raised, compared to 24 percent in the second quarter and 21
percent in Q3 2004. The Life Sciences succeeded, though, in keeping its position as
the second most attractive Israeli sector in the Q1-Q3 2005 period, attracting 22
percent of the capital raised.
Capital Raised by Stage
Thirteen Seed companies attracted $34 million, 10 percent of the total amount raised
in Q3. The amount was a significant jump from the $22 million or six percent raised
in Q2, and a slight drop from $36 million (8 percent) in Q3 04. Within Seed
companies, three Communications firms attracted 30 percent of the investments, and
two life science firms captured 27 percent. During the first three quarters of the year,
Seed companies attracted eight percent of the total funds, compared with six percent
in Q1-Q3 2004.

Want to Keep yourself updated? Get RSS!


RSS (file format) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication.
In simple words, the technology of RSS allows Internet users to subscribe to websites that have provided RSS feeds; these are typically sites that change or add content regularly. To use this technology, site owners create or obtain specialized software (such as a content management system) which, in the machine-readable XML format, presents new articles in a list, giving a line or two of each article and a link to the full article or post. Unlike subscriptions to many printed newspapers and magazines, most RSS subscriptions are free.
The RSS formats provide web content or summaries of web content together with links to the full versions of the content, and other meta-data. This information is delivered as an XML file called an RSS feed, webfeed, RSS stream, or RSS channel. In addition to facilitating syndication, RSS allows a website’s frequent readers to track updates on the site using an aggregator.

How can I use RSS?


RSS is widely used by the weblog community to share the latest entries’ headlines or their full text, and even attached multimedia files. RSS is now used for many purposes, including marketing, bug-reports, or any other activity involving periodic updates or publications.

A program known as a feed reader or aggregator can check RSS-enabled webpages on behalf of a user and display any updated articles that it finds. It is now common to find RSS feeds on major Web sites, as well as many smaller ones.

Client-side readers and aggregators are typically constructed as standalone programs or extensions to existing programs like web browsers. Such programs are available for various operating systems.

Web-based feed readers and news aggregators require no software installation and make the user’s “feeds” available on any computer with Web access. Some aggregators syndicate (combine) RSS feeds into new feeds, e.g. take all football related items from several sports feeds and provide a new football feed. There are also search engines for content published via RSS feeds like Feedster, Blogdigger or Plazoo.

On Web pages, RSS feeds are typically linked with an orange rectangle optionally with the letters XML or RSS.

What’s the connection between IT, VC and shopping?

Hi, thanks for dropping by. My name is Eze Vidra and I work for a primary, independent research firm servicing the institutional investment community.I graduated from IDC, Israel in 2004 majoring in Business Administration and minors in IT management and Entrepreneurship. I have gained great business experience, exposure to the financial community and a strong technical background. Prior to my current position in New York I served as a team leader at Shopping.com’s R&D department in Israel and additionally– co-founded a tech start up that develops “Smart Keyboard” software for hand held devices and 3rd generation cellphones.
If you have an idea for a venture – you came to the right place.

Exit mobile version