IBJNews

'12 worst year for life sciences since 1990s

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

To understand why Indiana’s life sciences entrepreneurs are frustrated with the flow of venture capital, look no further than this statistic from a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report: 2012 was the slowest year for first-time life sciences investment since 1995.

Nationwide, venture capital deals for life sciences companies totaled 779 last year, down 7 percent from 2011. Total investment came to $6.6 billion, a 14-percent decline from the year before. That was the lowest level of life sciences investment since 1998.

Indiana generally followed those trends, with life sciences deals falling to five in 2012 from six the year before. Total life sciences investment in the state fell 11 percent, to $24.2 million.

“As the number of new funds being raised continues to shrink, venture capitalists are being more discriminating with where they’re willing to place new bets,” Tracy T. Lefteroff, global managing partner of the venture capital practice at Pricewaterhouse, said in a report issued this month. “At the same time, they’re holding on to reserves to continue to support the companies already in their portfolio. Both factors are taking a toll on the amount of capital available for young startups, which is reflected in a 38-percent drop in the number of seed-stage companies receiving VC dollars in 2012.” 

Steve Hourigan, president of Elevate Ventures in Indianapolis, said those trends have made it nearly impossible for his organization to find co-investment partners on early-stage life sciences companies.

Elevate manages the Indiana 21st Century Research & Technology Fund on contract with the state. The organization has been criticized by life sciences entrepreneurs for backing away from life sciences companies in favor of IT and other kinds of businesses.

Indiana continues to run significantly behind its Midwestern neighbors in total life sciences venture capital raised.

Minnesota, typically the Midwest’s behemoth for life sciences companies, recorded 14 deals last year for a total of $138.9 million. Those totals were well below the state’s 2011 performance, when 28 companies attracted $220.8 million in life sciences venture capital.

The number of deals also slipped in Ohio, to 31 last year from 35 the year before. But total life sciences venture capital shot up 97 percent to $181.9 million.

Michigan also saw big gains, with 27 companies attracting $97.7 million last year, up from 11 deals the previous year that attracted $27.9 million.

In Illinois, the number of deals dropped to 10 last year from 15 the previous year. But those 10 deals brought in $165.8 million, a 17-percent increase from 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT