1. 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
NATIONAL
VENTURE
CAPITAL
ASSOCIATION
NATIONALVENTURECAPITALASSOCIATIONYEARBOOK2013
NATIONAL
VENTURE
CAPITAL
ASSOCIATION
YEARBOOK 2013
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, dif-
ferentiate 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 Mark G. Heesen John S. Taylor
FLAG Capital Management NVCA President NVCA Head of Research
NVCA Director & Chair,
NVCA Research Committee
3. 2 Thomson Reuters
NVCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2012-2013
Executive Committee
Ray Rothrock Josh Green
Chair Chair-Elect
Venrock Associates Mohr, Davidow Ventures
Michael Greeley Jonathan Leff
Treasurer At-Large & Research Committee
FlyBridge Capital Partners Deerfield Management
Jason Mendelson Scott Sandell
At-Large At-Large
Foundry Group New Enterprise Associates
Research Committee
Diana Frazier Mike Elliott
Chair, Research Committee Noro-Moseley Partners
FLAG Capital Management, LLC
Adam Grosser
Silver Lake Kraftwerk
Board Members At-Large
Jonathan Callaghan Maria Cirino
True Ventures .406 Ventures
David Douglass Bruce Evans
Delphi Ventures Summit Partners
Claudia Fan Munce Norm Fogelsong
IBM Venture Capital Group Institutional Venture Partners
Venky Ganesan Robert Goodman
Menlo Ventures Bessemer Venture Partners
Mark Gorenberg Jason Green
Hummer Winblad Venture Partners Emergence Capital Partners
Ross Jaffe, MD Ray Leach
Versant Ventures Jumpstart, Inc.
Sherrill Neff Robert Nelsen
Quaker BioVentures ARCH Venture Partners
David Lincoln James Marver
Element Partners VantagePoint Capital Partners
Anne Rockhold
Accel Partners
5. National Venture Capital Association
1655 Fort Myer Drive, Suite 850
Arlington, Virginia 22209-3114
Telephone: 703-524-2549
Telephone: 703-524-3940
www.nvca.org
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
Research Lab
Mavis Moulterd, Thea Shepherd
Thomson Reuters
3 Times Square, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4431
Fax: 646-223-4470
www.thomsonreuters.com
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)
4 Thomson Reuters
National Venture Capital Association 2013 Yearbook
7. This page is intentionally left blank.
6 Thomson Reuters
National Venture Capital Association
8. Thomson Reuters 7
Venture capital has enabled the United States to sup-
port 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 busi-
ness 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 estab-
lished 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 occur-
ring every year or two, are also equity investment, with
the shares allocated among the investors and manage-
ment 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 cre-
ate some of the most innovative and successful com-
panies. 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 approach-
ing 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
companies have received funding but no one- or two-
person 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-suc-
cessful 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 objec-
tives, 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 suc-
cessful in a reasonable timeframe, and be truly inno-
vative. A concept that promises a 10 or 20 percent
improvement on something that already exists is not
likely to get a close look.
What is Venture Capital?
Venture Capital Backed Companies
Known for Innovative Business Models
Employment at IPO and Now
Company As of IPO Current # Change
The Home Depot 650 331,000 330,350
Starbucks Corporation 2,521 160,000 157,479
Staples 1,693 89,019 87,326
Whole Foods Market, Inc. 2,350 69,500 67,150
eBay 138 31,500 31,362
Venture Capital Backed Companies
Known for Innovative Technology and Products
Employment at IPO and Now
Company As of IPO Current # Change
Microsoft 1,153 94,000 92,847
Intel Corporation 460 100,100 99,640
Medtronic, Inc. 1,287 45,000 43,713
Apple Inc. 1,015 76,100 75,085
Google 3,021 53,861 50,840
JetBlue 4,011 12,070 8,059
Source: Global Insight; Updated from ThomsonOne 2/2013
9. 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 empha-
sis 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 ven-
ture capital process when their projects were turned
down by their companies.
Common Structure — Unique Results
While the legal and economic structures used to cre-
ate a venture capital fund are similar to those used by
other alternative investment asset classes, venture cap-
ital 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 compa-
ny 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 suc-
cess 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 compa-
ny 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 cap-
ital fund and its investors split the capital gains per a
pre-agreed formula. Many college endowments, pen-
sion 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 compa-
ny. 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, protec-
tion 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 cultur-
al 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.
The Exit Funnel
Outcomes of the 11,686 Companies
First Funded 1991 to 2000
Went/Going Public
14%
Acquired
33%
Known Failed
18%
Still Private
or Unknown*
35%
*Of these, most have quietly failed
8 Thomson Reuters
National Venture Capital Association
10. Executive Summary
Introduction
The National Venture Capital Association 2013
Yearbook provides a summary of venture capital
activity in the United States. This ranges from invest-
ments into portfolio companies to capital managed
by general partners to fundraising from limited part-
ners to exits of the investments by either IPOs or
mergers and acquisitions. The statistics for this pub-
lication were assembled primarily from the
MoneyTree™ Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers
and the National Venture Capital Association, based
on data from Thomson Reuters and analyzed through
the ThomsonONE.com (formerly VentureXpert)
database of Thomson Reuters, which has been
endorsed by the NVCA as the official industry activ-
ity database. Subscribers to ThomsonONE can recre-
ate 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 $261.2 billion
The slight downtick in number of firms and capital
managed in 2012 perhaps understates a consolidat-
ing trend. The average venture capital firm shrunk to
7.0 principals per firm from 7.4 in 2011. The corre-
sponding drop in headcount to under 6,000 princi-
pals is almost one-third lower than 2007 levels. This
During 2012, many of the metrics describing the venture capital industry in the United States were similar to
those of the prior two years. The decline in the number of firms and capital managed was expected but not as
large as some were anticipating. Venture investment focused on companies in the seed and early stages, with
many later-stage companies continuing to await a helpful IPO environment. Investment in early-stage life sci-
ence companies continues to soften.
Fundraising remained very challenging for the majority of venture firms, largely because of a dearth of healthy
exits that would distribute yet-unrealized returns to current fund investors. The number of initial public offer-
ings in 2012 fell slightly from 2011 levels, but the proceeds and IPO valuation tally were both up significant-
ly, largely as a result of one huge IPO and a handful of large ones.
A healthy venture capital ecosystem requires its metrics to be in balance. And while the quality of new business
opportunities, known as deal flow, remains very high and the best opportunities are getting funded, stresses
remain.
Thomson Reuters 9
11999922 22000022 22001122
No. of VC Firms in Existence 358 1,089 841
No. of VC Funds in Existence 616 2,119 1,269
No. of Principals 4,996 14,541 5,887
No. of First Time VC Funds Raised 13 25 43
No. of VC Funds Raising Money This Year 78 176 162
VC Capital Raised This Year ($B) 4.9 15.7 20.1
VC Capital Under Management ($B) 28.7 272.1 199.2
Avg VC Capital Under Mgt per Firm ($M) 80.2 249.9 236.9
Avg VC Fund Size to Date ($M) 39.1 94.4 110.6
Avg VC Fund Size Raised This Year ($M) 62.8 89.2 124.1
Largest VC Fund Raised to Date ($M) 1,775.0 6,300.0 6,300.0
Figure 1.0
Venture Capital Under Management
Summary Statistics
11. National Venture Capital Association
10 Thomson Reuters
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
($Billions)
Year
Figure 2.0
Capital Under Management
U.S. Venture Funds ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
Figure 3.0
Capital Commitments to
U.S. Venture Funds ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
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
($Billions)
Year
12. 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, special-
ty, 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, com-
mitments totaling $20.1 billion were made to 183
funds. This is roughly two-thirds of the annual levels
seen in 2005-2007 and approximately one-fifth of the
annual amount raised at the bubble peak.
When you look behind the 2012 capital commitments
at the specific funds being raised, the 10 largest funds
represent 48% of the capital raised, with 173 funds
raising the other 52%.
This is the sixth consecutive year in which more
money was invested by the industry than raised in
new commitments. That has been the case in 11 of
the past 13 years. While this is not a true apples-to-
apples comparison, it does explain the industry’s
strong interest in raising additional funds in 2013
and beyond. The narrow success of recent IPO and
2013 NVCA Yearbook
Thomson Reuters 11
Figure 4.0
Investments in
Portfolio Companies ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
Investment Investment
Industry Group # Companies # Deals Amt ($Bil) # Companies # Deals Amt ($Bil)
Information Technology 2,130 2,480 16.5 870 870 3.0
Medical/Health/Life Science 649 818 6.8 148 148 0.7
Non-High Technology 364 425 3.4 156 156 0.4
Total 3,143 3,723 26.7 1,174 1,174 4.1
All Investments Initial Investments
Figure 5.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
By Industry Group
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
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
($Billions)
Year
13. National Venture Capital Association
12 Thomson Reuters
Figure 7.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Industry Sector by Dollars Invested
Business Products
and Services 0.4%
Computers and
Peripherals 2%
Consumer Products
and Services 5%
Electronics/
Instrumentation 1%
Biotechnology
15%
Financial Services 1%
Healthcare Services 1%
Industrial/Energy 10%
IT Services 7%
Media and
Entertainment 7%
Medical Devices
and Equipment 9%
Networking and
Equipment 1%
Retailing/
Distribution 2%
Semiconductors
3%
Telecommunications 2%
Software 31%
Other
0.2%
Seed 3%
Early Stage 30%
Expansion 35%
Later Stage 32%
Figure 6.0
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Stage by Dollars Invested
14. 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, $26.7 billion was invested in
3,143 companies. This is less than 2011 totals and
greater than 2010 totals.The number of first-time fund-
ings likewise was less than 2011 and greater than 2010.
Further parsing the data shows an increasing portion of
the investment dollars going to California companies.
Software was the leading sector in 2012, receiving
31% of the total dollars. The second largest sector was
Biotechnology which fell to roughly half that amount
at 15.4% of total investment The continued interest in
Clean Technology investing brought the
2013 NVCA Yearbook
Thomson Reuters 13
Figure 8.0
2012 Investments
By State
Year
1985 48 763 13 16 1,991 32 47 3 4
1986 104 2,414 14 23 166,260 53 1889 4 4
1987 86 2,125 17 25 10,790 46 150 4 4
1988 43 769 15 18 20,523 51 555 3 4
1989 42 873 16 21 5,479 51 166 4 4
1990 47 1,108 20 24 5,886 60 178 4 4
1991 120 3,726 27 31 14,151 78 168 5 5
1992 150 5,431 24 36 15,759 68 147 5 5
1993 175 6,141 24 35 14,430 75 129 5 6
1994 140 4,004 24 29 9,854 67 91 5 5
1995 184 7,859 36 43 17,046 103 136 4 5
1996 256 12,666 35 49 40,360 111 191 3 4
1997 141 5,831 33 41 17,784 99 146 3 6
1998 79 4,221 43 53 9,649 149 214 3 3
1999 280 24,005 70 86 86,669 294 425 3 3
2000 238 27,443 83 115 63,610 336 464 3 4
2001 37 4,130 80 112 15,545 304 576 4 4
2002 24 2,333 89 97 8,322 266 347 3 5
2003 26 2,024 71 78 7,412 252 285 5 6
2004 82 10,032 70 122 50,268 254 613 6 6
2005 59 5,113 68 87 39,702 202 673 5 5
2006 68 7,127 85 105 71,467 293 1067 5 6
2007 92 12,365 97 134 68,282 361 742 6 6
2008 7 765 83 109 3,645 278 521 7 7
2009 13 1,980 123 152 9,192 548 707 6 7
2010 68 7,609 93 112 111,386 431 1662 5 6
2011 51 10,690 106 210 94,987 606 1862 6 7
2012 49 21,451 89 438 122,264 371 2495 7 8
Mean Age
@ IPO (yrs)Num of IPOs
Offer
Amount
($Mil)
Med Offer
Amt ($Mil)
Mean Offer
Amt ($Mil)
Post Offer
Value ($Mil)
Med Post
Value ($Mil)
Mean Post
Value ($Mil)
Median Age
@ IPO (yrs)
Figure 9.0
Venture-Backed IPOs
Number of Pct of Investment Pct of
State Companies Total ($ Millions) Total
California 1,280 41% 14,128.8 53%
Massachusetts 326 10% 3,067.9 12%
New York 287 9% 1,856.7 7%
Washington 101 3% 931.5 3%
Texas 134 4% 930.5 3%
Illinois 76 2% 570.4 2%
Colorado 85 3% 564.2 2%
Pennsylvania 154 5% 517.8 2%
New Jersey 49 2% 429.3 2%
Virginia 62 2% 372.3 1%
All Others 589 19% 3,282.8 12%
Total 3,143 26,652.4
15. National Venture Capital Association
14 Thomson Reuters
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 invest-
ment 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 geo-
graphic 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.
Number Number ($ Millions)
Year Total Known Price Average
1985 6 3 300.2 100.1
1986 8 1 63.4 9.1
1987 10 4 667.2 111.2
1988 17 9 920.7 115.1
1989 20 10 746.9 74.7
1990 19 7 120.3 10.0
1991 16 4 190.5 15.9
1992 69 43 2,119.1 81.5
1993 59 36 1,332.9 58.0
1994 82 56 3,207.1 123.4
1995 92 58 3,801.8 111.8
1996 107 76 8,230.8 265.5
1997 143 99 7,743.6 176.0
1998 189 113 8,002.0 105.3
1999 227 154 38,688.0 530.0
2000 379 245 79,996.4 597.0
2001 384 175 25,115.6 120.2
2002 363 165 11,913.2 60.2
2003 323 134 8,240.8 43.6
2004 402 199 28,846.1 142.1
2005 443 198 19,600.2 80.0
2006 485 207 24,288.5 87.4
2007 488 200 30,745.5 106.8
2008 416 134 16,236.9 57.6
2009 350 108 12,364.9 51.1
2010 521 149 17,700.3 47.6
2011 488 169 24,093.2 75.5
2012 449 121 21,516.2 65.6
Figure 10.0
Venture-Backed M&A Exits
16. Exits
Once successful portfolio companies mature, venture
funds generally exit their positions in those compa-
nies by taking them public through an initial public
offering (IPO) or by selling them to presumably larg-
er 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 chap-
ter considers each type of exit separately.
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-
ing or seeking to go public were not able to do so.
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 suc-
ceeded.
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 one-
fifth 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.
2013 NVCA Yearbook
Thomson Reuters 15
17. This page is intentionally left blank.
National Venture Capital Association
16 Thomson Reuters
18. Industry Resources
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 actu-
ally making new investments in 2012.
To better report the actual number of active firms, we
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 cap-
ital under management by captive and evergreen
funds is difficult to compare equitably to typical lim-
ited 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.
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 cal-
culated using the methodology described below. However, looking behind the numbers, we know that the indus-
try continues to contract from the circa 2000 bubble high of $261.2 billion
The slight downtick in firms and capital managed in 2012 perhaps understates a consolidating trend. The aver-
age venture capital firm shrunk to 7.0 principals per firm from 7.4 in 2011. The corresponding drop in head-
count to under 6,000 principals is almost one-third lower than 2007 levels. This meant that there was an
increase in the average amount of capital managed by each principal. It is possible going forward, that the
number of principals per firm will increase as the number of firms decreases. This is because the bulk of the
money being raised today is being raised by larger, specialty, and boutique firms. For our purposes here, we
define a principal to be someone who goes to portfolio company board meetings. That is, deal partners would
be included and firm CFOs would not be included.
Geographic location of the largest venture firms is quite concentrated. California domiciled firms manage
47.1% of the industry’s capital although these firms may be actively investing in other states and countries. This
concentration has been consistent for several years and may increase going forward, given the movement of
some east coast funds westward. Taken together, the top five states (California, Massachusetts, New York,
Connecticut, and Illinois) hold 81.4% of total venture capital in this country.
Thomson Reuters 17
19. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
($Billions)
Year
Figure 1.01
Capital Under Management
U.S. Venture Funds ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
18 Thomson Reuters
Venture capital under management can be a complex
statistic to estimate. Indeed, capital under manage-
ment 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, oth-
ers 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 pri-
vate equity firms, which include capital gains as part
of their capital under management measurements.
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 commit-
ted capital less liquidated funds or those funds that
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 estab-
lished 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 this analysis, Thomson Reuters classifies venture
capital firms using four distinct types: private inde-
pendent firms, financial institutions, corporations,
and other entities. ‘Private independent’ firms are
National Venture Capital Association
20. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0-10
10-25
25-50
50-100
100-250
250-500
500-1000
1000+
155
125
111 112
139
91
60
47
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 $1 billion.
Figure 1.03
Distribution of Firms
By Capital Managed 2012
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
PrivateIndependent 11,636 14,574 17,299 18,607 22,112 22,632 21,805 22,557 25,199 28,528 33,417 40,235 51,877
FinancialInstitutions 3,368 3,508 3,442 3,178 2,714 2,802 2,392 2,220 2,484 2,924 3,758 5,123 7,209
Corporations 1,739 1,709 2,062 2,148 2,095 2,142 2,086 2,211 1,526 1,573 1,345 2,032 2,348 3
Other 857 909 897 867 779 725 618 313 191 275 380 409 665
Total 17,600 20,700 23,700 24,800 27,700 28,300 26,900 27,300 29,400 33,300 38,900 47,800 62,100
Figure 1.02
Total Capital Under Management
By Firm Type 1985 to 2012 ($ Millions)
Thomson Reuters 19
made up of independent private and public firms
including both institutionally and non-institutionally
funded firms and family groups. ‘Financial institu-
tions’ refers to firms that are affiliates and/or sub-
sidiaries of investment banks and non-investment
bank financial entities, including commercial banks
and insurance companies. The ‘corporations’ classifi-
cation includes venture capital subsidiaries and affili-
ates of industrial corporations. In 2013, we will mod-
ify the methodology to reflect virtually all direct cor-
porate investment because many of the corporate ven-
ture 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 with-
out 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.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
P 76,398 120,221 187,475 221,105 221,634 225,208 233,976 242,466 255,714 238,766 194,698 171,713 175,980 183,482 180,936
10,382 15,466 23,454 24,975 24,453 23,558 22,277 21,634 18,991 14,384 6,263 4,865 5,266 9,541 9,670
3,245 6,797 11,604 12,787 12,766 12,717 12,245 12,044 11,964 8,828 4,171 2,979 3,458 4,483 4,497
875 1,116 1,467 2,134 2,347 2,317 2,302 2,055 2,031 1,822 1,469 843 3,997 3,995 4,098
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
2013 NVCA Yearbook
21. No. Estimated Avg Mgt
Principals Industry Per Principal
Year Per Firm Principals ($M)
2007 8.7 8,665 30.0
2008 8.5 7,293 28.3
2009 8.6 6,760 26.4
2010 8.0 6,328 25.7
2011 7.4 6,231 28.6
2012 7.0 5,887 33.8
Figure 1.05
Principals Information
State ($ Millions)
CA 93,814.8
MA 34,482.3
NY 21,378.0
CT 8,051.2
IL 4,369.0
Total* 162,095.4
*Total includes above 5 states only
Figure 1.06
Top 5 States
By Capital Under Management 2012
*Total includes above 5 states 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 aver-
age manages $33.8 million and the average firm is made up of 7.0 principals, down
from 7.4 principals a year earlier.
Fund Total Total Total Firms That Raised Capital Avg Avg Firms
Vintage Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Existing Funds in the Last Managed Fund Size Firm Size Actively
Year Funds Firms Capital ($B) Funds 8 Vintage Years ($B) ($M) ($M) Investing
1985 631 323 20 532 294 17.6 33.1 59.9 92
1986 707 353 23.4 590 324 20.7 35.1 63.9 113
1987 810 388 27.4 670 353 23.7 35.4 67.1 112
1988 887 406 30.8 700 365 24.8 35.4 67.9 118
1989 979 435 35.8 727 380 27.7 38.1 72.9 115
1990 1,037 451 38.3 716 383 28.3 39.5 73.9 100
1991 1,075 458 40.5 639 360 26.9 42.1 74.7 80
1992 1,147 478 44.1 601 352 27.3 45.4 77.6 104
1993 1,244 509 49.4 613 370 29.4 48.0 79.5 93
1994 1,342 542 56.7 635 385 33.3 52.4 86.5 110
1995 1,497 607 66.2 687 424 38.9 56.6 91.7 185
1996 1,647 668 78.6 760 469 47.8 62.9 101.9 249
1997 1,859 760 97.9 880 541 62.1 70.6 114.8 342
1998 2,096 839 129.2 1,059 613 90.9 85.8 148.3 408
1999 2,433 966 184.1 1,358 733 143.6 105.7 195.9 713
2000 2,849 1,109 268.2 1,702 864 224 131.6 259.3 1053
2001 3,092 1,191 310.4 1,848 920 261 141.2 283.7 759
2002 3,174 1,208 318 1,832 918 261.2 142.6 284.5 534
2003 3,282 1,260 330 1,785 948 263.8 147.8 278.3 505
2004 3,447 1,328 349.4 1,800 984 270.8 150.4 275.2 575
2005 3,622 1,398 376.2 1,763 1009 278.2 157.8 275.7 558
2006 3,805 1,474 417.9 1,709 1019 288.7 168.9 283.3 570
2007 4,019 1,558 447.9 1,586 1010 263.8 166.3 261.2 627
2008 4,205 1,621 474.8 1,356 879 206.6 152.4 235 603
2009 4,313 1,664 490.7 1,221 818 180.4 147.7 220.5 462
2010 4,439 1,725 506.7 1,265 844 188.7 149.2 223.6 509
2011 4,599 1,787 531.5 1,317 868 201.5 153.0 232.1 545
2012 4,716 1,828 548.6 1,269 841 199.2 157.0 236.9 522
Figure 1.04
Fund and Firm Analysis
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 fundrais-
ing, 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.
20 Thomson Reuters
National Venture Capital Association
23. Life of IT Funds % of
In Years Funds
<= 10 7%
11-12 20%
13-14 27%
15-16 22%
17-18 14%
>=19 10%
Figure 1.08
Life of IT Funds in Years
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.
National Venture Capital Association
22 Thomson Reuters
24. Capital Commitments
Methodology
As defined by Thomson Reuters, capital commitments,
also known as fundraising, are firm capital commit-
ments to private equity/venture capital limited partner-
ships by outside investors. For purposes of these statis-
tics, 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 con-
ducted by Thomson Reuters, and (3) verified industry
press and press releases from venture firms.
Capital commitments are stated on either (1) a calen-
dar-year basis when committed (for example, through-
out this chapter) or (2) a vintage-year basis which is
designated once the fund starts investing (for example,
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.
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, noth-
ing 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.
Note that fund commitments presented in this publica-
tion do not include those corporate captive venture cap-
ital funds that are funded by a corporate parent, which
do not typically raise capital from outside investors.
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 com-
mitments. That has been the case in 11 of the past 13 years. While this is not a true apples-to-apples compar-
ison, 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 $13.7 billion,
holds the top spot for the tenth year in a row. Firms domiciled in the top five fundraising states in 2012 gath-
ered 88% of the dollars, compared with 91% in 2011, 88% in 2010 and 82% in 2009.
Please note that the state of fund domicile matters less than has been true historically. Much of the money is
managed by large, national funds that tend to be domiciled in any of several states with a broad geographic
investing footprint. Readers should not interpret capital available to entrepreneurs in a given state as being
limited to the capital raised in that state.
Venture capital fundraising typically makes up 20-25% of private equity fundraising. But in 2012, it represent-
ed 16% of total, down from 22% in 2011.
Thomson Reuters 23
27. National Venture Capital Association
26 Thomson Reuters
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
($Billions)
Year
Venture Capital Buyout and Mezzannine Capital
Figure 2.05
Private Equity
Annual Commitment ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
NNoo.. ooff CCoommmmiitttteedd
SSttaattee FFuunnddss (($$MMiill))
California 64 13,665.3
Massachusetts 17 1,409.7
Connecticut 4 1,388.0
New York 21 757.7
North Carolina 5 472.0
SSuubb--TToottaall 111111 1177,,669922..77
RReemmaaiinniinngg SSttaatteess 72 2,373.1
TToottaall 118833 2200,,006655..99
Figure 2.04
Top 5 States
By Venture Capital Committed 2012
28. Investments
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 invest-
ment 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 visi-
ble when just looking at first fundings. In 2012, only
149 life science (the three sectors combined) compa-
nies received first funding. This is 12.7% of the total.
As recently as 2006, the 294 first fundings of life sci-
ence 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 expansion-
stage companies. But it is worth looking more close-
ly at those statistics.
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 geo-
graphic 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 ven-
ture capital funding. Together, the top five states
(California, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and
Illinois) received 77% of the total dollars.
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.
Thomson Reuters 27
29. 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, California-
based 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 syndi-
cates to do deals in lieu of, or in advance of, invest-
ment rounds by traditional venture firms.
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 regular-
ly monitored by our research staff. Finally, publicly
available sources such as press releases and trade pub-
lications are used.
For detailed information on which transactions quali-
fy as MoneyTree deals and are therefore counted in
this chapter, please refer to Appendix B.
National Venture Capital Association
28 Thomson Reuters
30. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Thomson Reuters 29
Amt
State # Companies # Deals Invested ($Bil)
California 1,280 1,532 14.1
Massachusetts 326 414 3.1
New York 287 331 1.9
Washington 101 117 0.9
Texas 134 159 0.9
Total* 2,128 2,553 20.9
Figure 3.03
Venture Capital Investments
Top 5 States in 2012
Investment Investment
Industry Group # Companies # Deals Amt ($Bil) # Companies # Deals Amt ($Bil)
Information Technology 2,130 2,480 16.5 870 870 3.0
Medical/Health/Life Science 649 818 6.8 148 148 0.7
Non-High Technology 364 425 3.4 156 156 0.4
Total 3,143 3,723 26.7 1,174 1,174 4.1
All Investments Initial Investments
0
20
40
60
80
100
120 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
($Billions)
Year
Figure 3.02
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
By Industry Group
Figure 3.01
Venture Capital Investments ($ Billions)
1985 to 2012
*Total includes top 5 states only
31. National Venture Capital Association
30 Thomson Reuters
Business Products
and Services 0.4%
Computers and
Peripherals 2%
Consumer Products
and Services 5%
Electronics/
Instrumentation 1%
Biotechnology
15%
Financial Services 1%
Healthcare Services 1%
Industrial/Energy 10%
IT Services 7%
Media and
Entertainment 7%
Medical Devices
and Equipment 9%
Networking and
Equipment 1%
Retailing/
Distribution 2%
Semiconductors
3%
Telecommunications 2%
Software 31%
Other
0.2%
Figure 3.04
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Industry Sector by Dollars Invested
Seed 3%
Early Stage 30%
Expansion 35%
Later Stage 32%
Figure 3.05
Venture Capital Investments in 2012
Stage By Dollars Invested
32. 2013 NVCA Yearbook
Thomson Reuters 31
AR
NE
WY
8
AL
56
CO
5
DE
38
GA
2
HI
15
KS
MA
57
MD
33
MN
12
MO
2
MS
1
MT
2
ND
12
NH
12
NM
44
OH
94
TX
31
UT
5
VT
9
WI
250
AK
AR
NE
WY
43
AL
111
AZ
468
CO
18
DE
302
GA
7
HI
84
IA
15
ID
8
KS
277
MD
263
MN
24
MO
0
MS
15
MT
7
ND
7
NM
15
NV
101
OR
645
TX
178
UT
574
WA
23
WI
Figure 3.06
Amount of Capital Invested By State in 2012
($ Millions)
Figure 3.07
Number of Companies Invested in By State in 2012
6
MT
15
ID WY
564
CO
304
UT
7
NV14,129
CA
212
AZ
35
NM
931
TX
2
ND
0
SD
11
NE
46
KS
34
OK
243
MN
95
WI 232
MI
1,857
NY
4
VT
61
NH
13
ME
3,068 MA
85 RI
158 CT
429 NJ
9 DE
280 MD169 NC
87 TN
10
MS
23
AL
265
GA
203
FL
PR
VI
GU
5
IA
570
IL
84
IN
286
OH
372 VA
15
VW23
KY
21
MO
5
AR
11
LA
1
HI
AK
AK
24
OR
3
MT
1
ND
26
MN
4
ID
1
SD
1,280
CA
4
NV
37
UT
85
CO
5
NE
9
KS
1
IA
12
WI 41
MI
8
MO
76
IL
14
IN
51
OH
5
KY
30 TN
154
PA
62
VA
5
ME
8
NH
4
VT
287
NY
25
DC
1
AR
7
OK
134
TX
3
HI
4
LA
3
MS
6
AL
44
GA
31
FL
1 PR
VI
GU
12
NM
13
AZ
WY
518
PA
6 DC39
SC
5
SC
50
MD
6
DE
49 NJ
38 CT
12 RI
326 MA
2
WV
33 NC
932
WA
124
OR
101
WA