I will talk Baltimore election today by looking at Embry and Warnock. Both are long-time citizens of Baltimore---both are tied to Baltimore Development and the Master Plan----and both became far more wealthy these few decades------one is a lawyer----one a venture capitalist. Embry is a nice-enough looking woman. She has made no attempt to change the Master Plan towards Baltimore as an International Economic Zone and all of the injustice in development policy---she as a lawyer has watched as public justice in Baltimore fell to MISSING IN ACTION and has no problem obviously with all of the crony corporate fraud and government corruption that takes a few billion from Baltimore's revenue each year. So, she will be the same Wall Street Baltimore Development/Johns Hopkins Foreign Economic Zone person Baltimore has had for decades.
Warnock is the picture of patronage Baltimore----I do not know the history of his wealth but as we see below he is front and center in all of the government by NON-PROFIT CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS AND PATRONAGE. He says----we create the non-profit and create the social change we want to see allowing all the rest of Baltimore to do as we say. We have the Goldseker and Weinberg Foundations-----this Warnock Foundation all gaining wealth from the past decades Baltimore's revenue and assets were drained and communities left crumbling. In a Tammany Hall Baltimore----one does question the wealth of citizens. I want to visit what being a venture capitalist means---as Warnock's business is now using the wealth accumulated. If you listen to young politicians in Baltimore you will hear all this Wall Street global market talk-----and venture capitalism.
If you wonder why all the economic talk in Baltimore complete with having our public schools soaked in terms like global market and startups====entrepreneur and partnerships----this is why-----venture capitalists are the next scheme to take the American people for all they are worth----allowing them to do all the work of starting a business with a little venture capitalist funding-----which takes much of the control of that business and much of the value and profit if it is successful. More times than not-----a startup or entrepreneur will have worked for free for several years with no gain when being 'bought out'.
We believe in supporting social innovations in Baltimore by making direct
philanthropic investments, and promoting Baltimore’s great ideas by providing
a platform for thought leadership and community building. Our vision is a
Baltimore that fully capitalizes on its wealth of history, talent and energy –
a Baltimore where all citizens believe we are moving in a positive direction.
DEFINITION of 'Venture Capital'
Money provided by investors to startup firms and small businesses with perceived long-term growth potential. This is a very important source of funding for startups that do not have access to capital markets. It typically entails high risk for the investor, but it has the potential for above-average returns.
BREAKING DOWN 'Venture Capital'
Venture capital can also include managerial and technical expertise. Most venture capital comes from a group of wealthy investors, investment banks and other financial institutions that pool such investments or partnerships. This form of raising capital is popular among new companies or ventures with limited operating history, which cannot raise funds by issuing debt. The downside for entrepreneurs is that venture capitalists usually get a say in company decisions, in addition to a portion of the equity.
See why you would not have all this in our public schools if they were not controlled by corporations in Baltimore. There is no talk of simple social Democratic rebuilding of communities because global pols do not want real economies rebuilt in the US and especially in cities designated International Economic Zones.
What the American people are not being told as cities like Baltimore put all this global market venture capitalism on steroids is that the goal is for the rich to capture all new successful ideas coming down the pike and to do it with all of the early development costs taken by those called 'startup entrepreneurs'. They are creating a corner on all new businesses that might lead to market-share period.
Since the Bains Capital crew literally pushed most American corporations into bankruptcy and moved them global through all kinds of merger and acquisition during Obama's terms----the only money to be made is on new startups and that is why venture capitalists are there. These do not create jobs----they do not lead to small businesses-----because 99% of time that start-up dies or is bought out.
IT IS THE WORST OF ECONOMIC POLICY AND IS THE OPPOSITE OF SIMPLY BUILDING A LOCAL ECONOMY OF SMALL BUSINESSES EVERYONE NEEDS IN ALL COMMUNITIES IN BALTIMORE
Corporate venture capitalIf you can’t beat them, buy themFear of being displaced by startups is turning firms into venture capitalists
Nov 22nd 2014 | From the print edition The EconomistWHAT do a Braille printer made out of Lego and a drone that helps farmers monitor crops (pictured) have to do with chipmaking? Intel Capital, the venture-capital VC unit of the American technology giant, is not quite sure yet but it wants to find out. It recently announced it was taking stakes in 16 startups, including the firms making these products. Intel has been in the venture-capital business for over 20 years, and has invested in more than 1,300 companies in 56 countries. Over that time corporate enthusiasm for venture capital has waxed and waned—but has seldom been greater than it is now.
Companies as diverse as convenience stores (7-Eleven), chemists (Boots), financial firms (Visa and Citigroup) and carmakers (BMW) are all getting into the game. They are looking for quicker, cheaper and better sources of innovation than R&D, which often disappoints. In return, the startups they invest in benefit from their capital, expertise and connections. Over the past five years the number of corporate-venture units worldwide has doubled to 1,100; 25 of the 30 firms that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average have one according to Global Corporate Venturing, a trade publication. The $6.4 billion such units have invested so far this year is over 60% more than they did in 2012. America’s corporate investors have been involved in 18% of the country’s venture-capital deals this year.
Sceptics see a bubble. Three previous booms, which coincided with ones in conventional venture capital, ended in tears—in the late 1960s, the early 1980s and, most spectacularly, during the dotcom bubble, when a staggering $21 billion was invested in 2000 alone. After each bust, venture units were mothballed or shut.
Believers say the likes of Intel Capital and Google Ventures have learned to use their expertise rather than just their deep pockets. This boom is also driven by necessity, says Dörte Höppner of the European Venture Capital Association. Disruptive innovation has become the single biggest worry for many firms. Setting up VC arms is a way to identify life-threatening changes to their business early, so that they can adapt or, better yet, get in on the act, says Ben Veghte of America’s National Venture Capital Association, whose membership has mushroomed in recent years.
Perhaps as a result, the new generation of venture units looks better integrated with their parents: instead of chasing the next Facebook (or drone), they tend to invest in industries related to the firm’s main business. IBM, for instance, has set up a $100m fund to back startups that use the technology behind Watson, a computer that can communicate in colloquial language. It has already invested in Welltok, a health-care startup which has invented an app which uses the technology to analyse users’ habits and give medical advice.
There are some indications that corporate VC is working better than in the past. Startups backed by firms are more likely to list their shares than those championed by conventional venture groups. A bank in Silicon Valley estimated last year that corporate VC yields three times the number of patents per dollar invested than in-house R&D. The longevity of corporate VC arms is also increasing: the average age is now five and 120 have lasted a decade or more. That makes them hardier than many chief executives.
It is not only that these venture capitalists start with the goal of winning at any cost-----as with all that is Wall Street the entire venture capitalist system is now filled with fraud and citizens have no way of knowing when they will be scammed and no way to seek justice once defrauded. GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALISM IS DEAD FOLKS---STOP ALLOWING THEM TO TRY TO KEEP IT ALIVE WITH MORE AND MORE AND MORE FRAUD----THIS IS A 'SHIP OF FOOLS'.
'Venture capitalists "bury their dead very quietly," Mr. Ghosh says. "They emphasize the successes but they don't talk about the failures at all."
Updated Sept. 20, 2012 12:01 a.m. ET
It looks so easy from the outside. An entrepreneur with a hot technology and venture-capital funding becomes a billionaire in his 20s.
But now there is evidence that venture-backed start-ups fail at far higher numbers than the rate the industry usually cites.
About three-quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don't return investors' capital, according to recent research by Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School.
Coming Sept. 27
The Wall Street Journal reveals its third annual ranking of the top 50 start-ups in the U.S. backed by venture capitalists. Compare that with the figures that venture capitalists toss around. The common rule of thumb is that of 10 start-ups, only three or four fail completely. Another three or four return the original investment, and one or two produce substantial returns. The National Venture Capital Association estimates that 25% to 30% of venture-backed businesses fail.
Mr. Ghosh chalks up the discrepancy in part to a dearth of in-depth research into failures. "We're just getting more light on the entrepreneurial process," he says.
His findings are based on data from more than 2,000 companies that received venture funding, generally at least $1 million, from 2004 through 2010. He also combed the portfolios of VC firms and talked to people at start-ups, he says. The results were similar when he examined data for companies funded from 2000 to 2010, he says.
Venture capitalists "bury their dead very quietly," Mr. Ghosh says. "They emphasize the successes but they don't talk about the failures at all."
There are also different definitions of failure. If failure means liquidating all assets, with investors losing all their money, an estimated 30% to 40% of high potential U.S. start-ups fail, he says. If failure is defined as failing to see the projected return on investment—say, a specific revenue growth rate or date to break even on cash flow--then more than 95% of start-ups fail, based on Mr. Ghosh's research.
Failure often is harder on entrepreneurs who lose money that they've borrowed on credit cards or from friends and relatives than it is on those who raised venture capital.
"When you've bootstrapped a business where you're not drawing a salary and depleting whatever savings you have, that's one of the very difficult things to do," says Toby Stuart, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.
Venture capitalists make high-risk investments and expect some of them to fail, and entrepreneurs who raise venture capital often draw salaries, he says.
Consider Daniel Dreymann, a founder of Goodmail Systems Inc., a service for minimizing spam. Mr. Dreymann moved his family from Israel in 2004 after co-founding Goodmail in Mountain View, Calif., the previous year. The company raised $45 million in venture capital from firms including DCM, Emergence Capital Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners, and built partnerships with AOL Inc., Comcast Corp. , and Verizon Communications Inc. At its peak, in 2010, Goodmail had roughly 40 employees.
But the company began to struggle after its relationship with Yahoo Inc. fell apart early that year, Mr. Dreymann says. A Yahoo spokeswoman declined to comment.
In early 2011 an acquisition by a Fortune 500 company fell apart. Soon after, Mr. Dreymann turned over his Goodmail keys to a corporate liquidator.
All Goodmail investors incurred "substantial losses," Mr. Dreymann says. He helped the liquidator return whatever he could to Goodmail's investors, he says. "Those people believed in me and supported me."
Daniel Dreymann's antispam service Goodmail failed, despite getting $45 million in venture capital. Alison Yin for the Wall Street J How well a failed entrepreneur has managed his company, and how well he worked with his previous investors, makes a difference in his ability to persuade U.S. venture capitalists to back his future start-ups, says Charles Holloway, director of Stanford University's Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
David Cowan of Bessemer Venture Partners has stuck with Mr. Dreymann. The 20-year venture capitalist is an "angel" investor in Mr. Dreymann's new start-up, Mowingo Inc., which makes a mobile app that rewards shoppers for creating a personal shopping mall and following their favorite stores.
"People are embarrassed to talk about their failures, but the truth is that if you don't have a lot of failures, then you're just not doing it right, because that means that you're not investing in risky ventures," Mr. Cowan says. "I believe failure is an option for entrepreneurs and if you don't believe that, then you can bang your head against the wall trying to make it work."
Overall, nonventure-backed companies fail more often than venture-backed companies in the first four years of existence, typically because they don't have the capital to keep going if the business model doesn't work, Harvard's Mr. Ghosh says. Venture-backed companies tend to fail following their fourth years—after investors stop injecting more capital, he says.
Of all companies, about 60% of start-ups survive to age three and roughly 35% survive to age 10, according to separate studies by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes U.S. entrepreneurship. Both studies counted only incorporated companies with employees. And companies that didn't survive might have closed their doors for reasons other than failure, for example, getting acquired or the founders moving on to new projects. Languishing businesses were counted as survivors.
Of the 6,613 U.S.-based companies initially funded by venture capital between 2006 and 2011, 84% now are closely held and operating independently, 11% were acquired or made initial public offerings of stock and 4% went out of business, according to Dow Jones VentureSource. Less than 1% are currently in IPO registration.
As the last article stated----venture capitalist never reveal failures---they only tout successes and one person's idea of success is not another person's ----that is for sure. Indeed, Baltimore is ground zero for all this start-up policy as it was ground zero for the subprime mortgage fraud, all of the Wall Street financial frauds, pension frauds, and the coming bond market fraud. This will end in several years with media stating that the whole system was fraudulent and everyone was taken.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE REPUBLICAN THAN MITT ROMNEY'S BAINS CAPITAL AND VENTURE CAPITALISM-----AND IT FILLS BALTIMORE'S ECONOMY!
'including working closely with Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures'.
The East Coast City That's Becoming a Surprising Hub for Tech Startups
Baltimore has the ability to become the next major hub of early-stage tech on the East Coast.
By Paul Grossinger
Strategy officer, Imperative
WRITE A COMMENT
Baltimore, because of a curious mixture of geographic positioning, educated talent, proximity to pork, and determined capital, is poised to become a crucial part of the East Coast technology cluster.
The city, which was long rarely noticed and underserved, is ideally positioned to take advantage of the startup economy for several key reasons. Here are four of them.
1. Geographic positioning.
Baltimore is less than three hours by train from Washington, D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia, and less than four from Boston. It is the classic "East Coast day trip" city, which has profound implications: It means Baltimore companies can be an active and daily part of the New York-centric East Coast cluster, without suffering New York's high cost of operations and very high salaries for talent.
This also means that regional angel investors and venture capitalists from nearby states--particularly New York--can evaluate Baltimore companies as "local startups," which far increases their likelihood of investment and mentorship. I include myself in that assessment; leveraging a strong local network in Baltimore to invest is far easier for me from New York than similar efforts on the West Coast.
"Baltimore's proximity to both D.C. and NYC provides ample opportunities for startups to grow and thrive," said Elizabeth Galbut of A-Level Capital, which is a student-run fund investing in companies with a Johns Hopkins associated founder.
2. Educated talent.
All great startup cities have strong universities and a glut of educated workers, and Baltimore is no exception--indeed, it's a clear leader in this area.
Johns Hopkins--my own alma mater and one of the world's leading research and engineering schools--the University of Maryland, the University of Baltimore, and others all create a wealth of educated talent for growing startups, particularly, but hardly exclusively, in health care.
Baltimore also benefits here from its geographic proximity: Graduates from the best universities in Philadelphia--University of Pennsylvania, Temple, Drexel--and Washington--Georgetown, George Washington--view Baltimore as a morning commute away, rather than a major move.
Several of the companies I have funded in Baltimore have directly taken advantage of these schools' proximity to hire top talent at very affordable rates, and we encourage our companies to recruit locally due to both its cost and cultural benefits.
"Because of its very long history as the home of highly successful entrepreneurs, scientists, and artists, Baltimore's DNA is infused with energetic people collaborating to do amazing things. It's a place that incubates great ideas because of an amazing work ethic," said Baltimore angel investor Ken Karpay.
3. Proximity to pork.
While Silicon Valley benefits from the fatty drippings of its tech behemoths--namely routine acquisitions from Google, Facebook, and the like--Baltimore benefits from being very close to the source of federal contracts and research grants.
The state of Maryland itself is also quite generous in this regard. Several of my best Baltimore companies have simultaneously pursued grants from the NIH, NSF, and SBIRs in Washington and Tedco and MVF in Maryland, which has dramatically increased their potential for success.
"Baltimore has achieved a critical mass of startups and early-stage companies, a culture of community from support entrepreneurs that have 'been there and done that,' and a quality of life that is attracting young professionals. Combine this with increasingly active angel and seed investors--Tedco completed 35 investments last year--and what you have are ingredients needed to continue Baltimore's astounding growth in its entrepreneurial and innovation communities," said Robert Rosenbaum, president of Tedco, which uses state capital and invests small six-figure tranches in early-stage local companies.
4. Determined capital.
Baltimore also has one of the best capital bases of any mini-cluster. In addition to being accessible to New York City and (to a lesser degree) Boston angel and venture capital, Baltimore has its own homegrown and increasingly determined capital base. Large funds Greenspring and Camden Partners are beginning to look more closely at the early stage, including working closely with Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.
My own syndicate, Blue Jay, routinely works with Tedco, Baltimore Angels, and others to serve as a regular and dependable early stage capital source.
"We at Camden Partners are now adding permanent venture capital in Baltimore with our newest Exelixis Fund focused in seed stage investing in this area," said George Petrochelios of Camden Partners.
In Baltimore, loaning yourself $1 million in campaign funding makes you A POPULAR SUPPORTED candidate worthy of being in all mayoral forums, media coverage, and polls.
'Baltimore mayoral candidate David Warnock loans campaign nearly $1 million'
Baltimore mayoral candidate David Warnock loans campaign nearly $1 million
Businessman David Warnock is running for Baltimore mayor.
(Lloyd Fox / Baltimore Sun)
Luke BroadwaterContact Reporter
The Baltimore Sun
At least one Baltimore mayoral candidate has already raised more than most leading candidates usually do.Baltimore mayoral candidate David L. Warnock, the venture capitalist and philanthropist, said Friday he has loaned his campaign nearly $1 million — a figure that surpasses what most leading candidates typically raise.
Warnock said in a statement that he loaned himself $950,000 and raised about $360,000, a total of about $1.3 million. His campaign declined to release a detailed financial report. Those are due Wednesday.
"We have a very targeted direct-voter plan," said Krishana Davis, Warnock's campaign spokeswoman. "Our fundraising dollars will go toward making sure that we are connected in all areas and neighborhoods of Baltimore and are able to talk to the voters about what matters to them most."
Warnock also released a preview of his policy plan that calls for increasing demolition of vacant houses, providing better job training for city residents and requiring annual audits of city agencies, among other proposals.
In the last mayoral election, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the winner, spent more than $2 million, while state Sen. Catherine E. Pugh, the runner-up, spent more than $700,000. They were followed by third-place finisher Otis Rolley, who spent more than $400,000, and fourth-place finisher Joseph T. "Jody" Landers, who spent nearly $200,000.
Sheila Dixon is early front-runner in Baltimore's mayoral race, new poll shows "I invested in my campaign because I am invested in Baltimore — its people, its schools, its education, its communities and its neighborhoods," Warnock said in a statement. "Baltimore deserves a leader who is willing to fully invest in the health, growth and stability of our city."
Twelve Democrats — and 20 candidates total — are running to become Baltimore's next mayor. Rawlings-Blake is not seeking re-election.
Leading candidates include former Mayor Sheila Dixon, Pugh, City Council members Carl Stokes and Nick J. Mosby, and lawyer Elizabeth Embry.
Candidates for Baltimore mayor in 2016 Pugh recently purchased $3,000 in advertising time on cable channels. One of her commercials aired Thursday on CNN. It endorsed, among other policies, a return of the city school system to mayoral control. The mayor and governor currently share responsibility for appointing the school board.
Some candidates in City Council races have begun posting their campaign fund totals as well. CSX Vice President Brian W. Hammock, who is challenging incumbent Councilman Bill Henry in North Baltimore's 4th District, reported raising more than $110,000 — a large total for a council race.
Hammock's money includes a $3,000 transfer from state Sen. Joan Carter Conway, a Baltimore Democrat; a $3,000 contribution from developer Mark Sapperstein; a $2,000 contribution from former Gov. Martin O'Malley's "O' Say Can You See" federal political action committee; and a $1,000 contribution from lobbyist Sean Malone, among others. Henry challenged Conway unsuccessfully for state Senate in 2014.
"It's humbling to have that level of support both from the community and business leaders and public policy leaders," Hammock said. "We need to make a change on our City Council."
City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, who represents the 14th District, also in North Baltimore, reported raising more than $50,000 in her re-election bid. She faces three challengers.
City Councilman James B. Kraft, who represents Southeast Baltimore's 1st District, reported raising about $27,000 in his race for Baltimore Circuit Court judge. He has more than $122,000 on hand.
Financial literacy teacher Tony Christian, who is challenging 2nd District Councilman Brandon Scott in Northeast Baltimore, raised slightly more than $1,000.