Retour aux nouvelles

31 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

‘The math doesn’t make sense’: Why venture capital firms are wary of defense-focused investments

By: Aaron Mehta

WASHINGTON — In American's technology marketplace, venture capital funds are crucial for pumping capital into small companies in need of cash infusions to keep operating. Part of the venture capital model is acknowledging that many of those businesses will fail, but if a few are successful, venture capitalists can make huge returns on their investments.

At a time when the Pentagon is working hard to entice small technology companies to work on defense projects, venture capital, or VC, funding could further mature technology and give entrepreneurs a chance to keep projects going. And yet, investors seem wary of putting forth cash to support companies with a defense focus.

Why? In the wake of the very public fight inside Google over working with the Pentagon — which ended with the company pulling the plug on its Project Maven participation — there was a consensus from the defense establishment that there may be a culture gap that is simply too large to overcome. But according to a trio of venture capitalists who spoke to Defense News in December, the reasons are simpler.

Katherine Boyle, with VC firm General Catalyst, said the culture issue is overblown for the VC community. The reluctance to work on defense programs comes down to a mix of “math and history," she said.

"The math is the reason why investors are hesitant to put a third of their fund into these types of technologies because history shows us that they haven't worked out well,” Boyle explained.

She said the math can be broken down into three factors: mergers, margins and interest rates.

On the first, she pointed to the fact that the defense sector has seen thousands of firms exit the market, sometimes because of acquisitions by primes. But, she argued, where mergers and acquisitions tend to occur in other parts of the world to acquire new technology or capability, in the defense realm it's all about contracting value. That makes it “very difficult for new technologies to enter the market and ultimately be acquired at the valuations that venture investors would need to see in order to have a return for their fund.”

In terms of margins, Boyle pointed out that defense firms are very focused on hardware, which requires a lot of investment upfront. That makes it “very difficult to invest in for venture capital firms because software has 80 percent margins, and it's much easier to build a company that can scale very quickly if it's software-based versus needing a lot of capital,” she said.

The third factor, interest rates, ties into the last two. For decades interest rates have allowed VC firms to expand dramatically — something that requires a constant flow of return from investments in order to turn around funds and quickly invest in another opportunity. In the world of defense, investors with $3 billion to $5 billion under management by the VC community will find it difficult to get the kind of returns investors are accustomed to from other markets.

All three of those factors come together in a mix that means there are very few chances for VC firms to invest in defense-related companies that match up with what a VC traditionally wants to see, said John Tenet, a partner with investment firm 8VC and vice chairman of the defense company Epirus.

“VC investors invest based on speed and scale and probability of a 10 to 20 times return. And so I think that's where you've seen a little bit of apprehension, at least in [Silicon] Valley,” Tenet said. “The exits haven't been that fast, and you sort of have these five big players on one side [that] sort of monopolize the market.”

From a pure numbers standpoint, a good benchmark for performance is to look at the S&P 500, according to Trae Stephens, co-founder and chairman of Anduril Industries and partner at Founders Fund. Over a 10-year period, an investor in the S&P can expect to get roughly 3 times their investment back. VC firms want to be able to beat that for an investment to be worth it.

To highlight the challenge of attracting VC funding to defense firms with potentially limited return, Stephens pointed to the case of Blackbird Technologies. A venture-backed player in specialized communications tech aimed at the defense market, Blackbird was bought in 2014 by Raytheon for about $420 million. That looks good on paper, but the reality is the churn isn't strong enough for a big, Silicon Valley-based venture capital group.

“A lot of times in the government, people say: ‘Oh, Blackbird is this, like, great example of a success story that was like a boost for venture.' It's actually not. It's not a venture scale of return for most funds,” he said. “There are some funds where the economics of [an exit that size] is really good, but for large, Silicon Valley tier-one funds, it doesn't move the needle. And so you have to have these multibillion-dollar opportunities in order for it to really make economic sense.”

Another issue raised by Stephens will be familiar to defense primes as well: concerns over sharing intellectual property with the Defense Department.

The department is essentially saying “you are the right product for us, now turn over your source code,” Stephens said. “It's crazy. We're literally doing to our companies in America what we're criticizing the Chinese for doing to their companies and to our companies when we enter that market. And so there has to be a better commercial practice for enabling companies to retain their IP and do business with the government without having to fight a legal battle every time they go through a contract.”

‘Knock down the doors'

Despite those concerns, all three venture capitalists that spoke to Defense News are involved in investments in defense-focused firms. So why are they spending their money in the sector? Mission is part of it — the belief that, as Americans, a stronger Defense Department benefits their firms.

But that only goes so far if dollars don't follow.

Once again, it comes down to math. Investing in a company focused on defense technologies, which may have to wait years to secure a contract with the Pentagon, isn't a great strategy for a VC firm looking for quick returns. But if a company is able to get government funding early on, the business suddenly becomes more worthy of investment, said Boyle.

“If the government is allocating capital in the right way, it will get VC dollars immediately. Like, it will follow so quickly,” Boyle said. “I see so many people come in to our office and they have an OTA [other transaction authority contract], and they're excited. It's a small, $1 million contract, and that is great for a seed company. But if that same company came in 18 months later and said, ‘Oh, by the way, the OTA has turned into a $10 million contract,' that would meet every milestone that I usually see to series A.” (An OTA is a type of contract that enables rapid prototyping; series A financing is the investment that follows growth from initial seed capital used to launch operations.)

“$10 million to the US government is nothing, but to [a] startup — $10 million is the best startup I've seen all year, if they're an 18-month-old startup and they're getting that kind of capital early on,” she said.

Added Stephens: “It means they're doing something right.”

That creates a chicken and egg scenario: Venture capitalists only want to invest in companies that already have a Pentagon contract, but small firms often can't keep the doors open long enough without external funding while waiting for the department's contracting processes to progress. While groups such as the Defense Innovation Unit — the Pentagon's technology hub — are helping speed along that process, it remains a problem with no easy solution, at a time when the Pentagon needs the nondefense technology community in ways it hasn't for decades.

Boyle believes there is a “growing group” of investors who see the strong success of a handful of companies like goTenna, Anduril or Shield AI that have managed to break through and become successful defense-focused investment vehicles. That means the next few years are going to be critical for everyone involved.

“None of us would be here if we weren't optimistic,” she said. “I actually think this is an incredible time to be investing in deep tech, particularly deep-tech companies that are selling to the Department of Defense because if it doesn't happen now, it never will.”

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/cultural-clash/2020/01/30/the-math-doesnt-make-sense-why-venture-capital-firms-are-wary-of-defense-focused-investments/

Sur le même sujet

  • Geopolitical Instability and the Need to Refresh Obsolete Fleets will Drive Recovery of Military and Public Services Helicopters Market

    16 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Geopolitical Instability and the Need to Refresh Obsolete Fleets will Drive Recovery of Military and Public Services Helicopters Market

    NEWS PROVIDED BY Frost & Sullivan Commercial off-the-shelf solutions and modernisation strategies will ignite fresh growth opportunities, finds Frost & Sullivan LONDON, Oct. 16, 2018 /CNW/ -- After almost 10 years of stagnation and delayed programmes in key regions, the global market for military and public services helicopters is facing recovery. Growth is primarily driven by geopolitical tensions, replacing and upgrading obsolete helicopters, new development programs such as rotary unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) of operations to strengthen battlefield readiness. "Ongoing deployment overseas and rising threats will drive market recovery and fuel demand for additional helicopters," said Alix Leboulanger, Senior Industry Analyst, Defence at Frost & Sullivan. "There will be a focus on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions to minimise training, sustain costs and improve adoption timeframes with modernisation plans preferred due to budget sensitivity and operational readiness requirements." For further information on this analysis, please visit: http://frost.ly/2uq Leboulanger recommends helicopter original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) look towards recent developments in the rise of UAS and their increasing operational usage on front lines. The development of rotary UAS has generated new opportunities for helicopter OEMs in terms of new platform developments and designs and is one of the most promising growth areas within this market. Five key trends creating growth opportunities in the market include: North America remains the biggest market for military helicopters; Operators are increasingly looking at optimising their fleets with fewer types and more operational capabilities; Global renewal cycles hold billions of dollars' worth of planned and forecasted opportunities in new procurements and modernisation programmes; Significant investment in MUM-T as joint deployments of manned and unmanned assets become the new standard; and Collaboration with non-traditional military players and start-ups involved in robotic fields to refine and improve UAS. "Despite stringent replacement requirements and operational readiness objectives pushing forward military helicopter replacement plans, financial recovery remains very fragile," noted Leboulanger. "Political uncertainty over international trade agreements and the reissuing of trade barriers could impact helicopter production lines and exports. Original equipment manufacturers need to consider new strategies for international competition and to retain traditional export customers." Frost & Sullivan's recent analysis, Global Military and Public Services Helicopters Market, Forecast to 2026, assesses disruptive trends, drivers and restraints, market share and the competitive environment for players such as Boeing, Sikorsky Aircraft, Airbus Helicopters, Bell Helicopters, Leonardo Helicopters, Hindustan Aeronautics, Russian Helicopters, MD Helicopters, and AVICOPTER, L-3 Technologies, and Lockheed Martin. Spending forecasts, key findings, and engineering measurements for segments such as attack, maritime, utility, transport, and public services helicopters are provided. Regional analysis includes Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and South America, Europe, Central and South Asia, Middle East, and North America. About Frost & Sullivan For over five decades, Frost & Sullivan has become world-renowned for its role in helping investors, corporate leaders and governments navigate economic changes and identify disruptive technologies, Mega Trends, new business models and companies to action, resulting in a continuous flow of growth opportunities to drive future success. Contact us: Start the discussion. Global Military and Public Services Helicopters Market, Forecast to 2026 MD6A_16 Contact: Jacqui Holmes Corporate Communications Consultant E: jacqui.holmes@frost.com Twitter: @FrostADS LinkedIn: Frost & Sullivan's Aerospace, Defence and Security Forum http://ww2.frost.com SOURCE Frost & Sullivan https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/geopolitical-instability-and-the-need-to-refresh-obsolete-fleets-will-drive-recovery-of-military-and-public-services-helicopters-market-697658971.html

  • Russia's New Fighter Breaks Cover'€”It's Got 'Stealth' Written All Over It

    19 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Russia's New Fighter Breaks Cover'€”It's Got 'Stealth' Written All Over It

    Photos have appeared online depicting Russia's new stealth fighter, dubbed Checkmate. We now can try to assess its design.

  • Navy Looking to Buy Aircraft Engines as Civilian Demand Dwindles

    29 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

    Navy Looking to Buy Aircraft Engines as Civilian Demand Dwindles

    By: Megan Eckstein The Navy is moving forward with its plans to take advantage of a commercial aviation slowdown by accelerating new orders, buying spare parts and conducting depot maintenance – all in conjunction with the other services, to get the maximum benefit of what the industry has to offer even while combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Navy acquisition chief James Geurts told reporters today that, both because customers are avoiding commercial air travel and because aviation manufacturing sites are being hit by the coronavirus, “commercial aviation is still remarkably challenged, and remarkably important because we do get a lot of benefit in the DoD from commercial aviation sector, from those companies that work in both areas. So we're working closely with them.” Geurts had said two weeks ago that the Navy was early in the process of identifying what opportunities might exist to keep aviation-related production lines moving despite limited commercial demand, while also building up Navy readiness by boosting the inventory of spare parts or getting ahead of schedule on acquisition or maintenance efforts. After Geurts made those remarks, his counterpart, Defense Department acquisition chief Ellen Lord, said that aviation was the hardest-hit sector in the defense industrial base due to the COVID-19 pandemic and response. Today, asked what opportunity there was to get ahead on aviation acquisition and maintenance even amid the sector's great disruptions, Geurts told USNI News during a media teleconference that the effort is moving forward and that aviation propulsion would be a key focus. “We're working closely with our partners in the other services so we have a whole-of-DoD approach to those companies in those efforts,” he said. He added that his focus would be less about awarding new contracts and instead looking at rephasing or accelerating work, connecting companies with grants and loans they might not otherwise have access to, and more. “We're looking at the full tools we have available and then trying to rapidly tailor those tools and the right mix to each individual sector and each individual situation,” he said. “I don't see a giant DoD-level contract. I think it's more about synchronizing efforts and working closely with my counterparts in the other services so that we're working together to get the maximum benefit, and I think that's more an alignment of strategies and tools than in a large new kind of joint contract.” For example, the Navy is looking at construction programs where “we may not have planned to buy the engine for three months, but maybe we can buy it now and gain some efficiency.” On programs like the P-8A Poseidon, a military version of the popular Boeing 737, the Navy could find money within the program to stock up on parts, or to leverage Boeing depot repair capabilities not being used by commercial planes. “There will be a natural limitation of funding and whatnot, so we can't do that infinitely, but we're looking to leverage all the different toolsets we have,” Geurts said. Outside the Navy budget, Geurts said the Navy has been trying to help its smaller suppliers get connected with the Small Business Administration to apply for loans so they can keep their production moving or even accelerate. And in the Navy's own Small Business Innovative Research, the service has $250 million in awards that Geurts is trying to get out to industry as quickly as possible over the next couple months. More broadly, Geurts said the Navy had already been taking a close look at its domestic and international supply chain and is in a good position now to be making informed decisions as the entire world faces disruptions from this pandemic. In hard-hit Italy, for example, companies that make parts for the Marine Corps' amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) – which BAE Systems builds in partnership with Italian defense contractor Iveco, which designed the vehicle for the Italian Navy – have had to shut down. “Everybody is working very aggressively to manage around it,” Geurts said, adding “there's nothing I would put in a crisis mode yet, we're just keeping an eye on it.” He said for ACV and other programs that rely on international suppliers, the program offices are looking to rephrase elements of construction to account for certain components being delayed, or may look at using spare parts for already-fielded vehicles to support construction. The latter move, though, would have to be done carefully to balance both production and sustainment needs, he said. https://news.usni.org/2020/04/28/navy-looking-to-buy-aircraft-engines-as-civilian-demand-dwindles

Toutes les nouvelles