Budget shrinks 21st Century tech fund

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even as some of its investments bear fruit in grand fashion, the state’s principal fund for investing in high-tech companies may get even less in the next budget than it did two years ago when its funding was cut in half.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. is seeking $31 million for the 21st Century Research and Technology Fund for 2011-2013.

Mitch Roob Indiana Secretary of Commerce Mitchell Roob Jr. does not want to see taxes rise.

That compares with $35 million allocated by the Legislature for the current two-year period ending in June.

The IEDC noted that the request for the 21st Century Fund is “essentially flat” from current levels, but the $31 million compares with $70 million the fund received in 2007-2009.

The fund was cut in half in 2009 as the Legislature and Gov. Daniels slashed a half-billion dollars from the state budget in response to sagging tax revenue.

“They asked for less? Wow,” said Bruce Kidd, former director of entrepreneurship at IEDC, when told of the latest request.

Leaders of the technology trade group TechPoint have urged state leaders to restore funding to the $70 million level as a way to bolster innovation and economic growth.

Kidd said he appreciates the state’s financial challenges amid a recovering economy. He also concedes that it can take several years to see results from firms that have received grant money from the fund.

“On the flip side, if you’re going to invest in our future, it has to be investing in innovation, as opposed to infrastructure. … I hate to see the momentum slip,” Kidd said.

bruce kidd Kidd

That momentum became apparent last month when the 12-year-old fund for the first time recouped all the money it granted an emerging company and then some.

Carmel-based Marcadia Biotech paid the fund $2.6 million on a $2 million investment made to the company. Marcadia was acquired by Swiss life sciences giant Roche for $287 million. Marcadia investors have the potential to collect another $250 million as Marcadia’s experimental diabetes medicine moves closer to market.

Another winning company previously funded by the 21st Century Fund was cancer drugmaker Endocyte, based at Purdue University Research Park. Endocyte recently completed an initial public stock offering that raised $79 million.

The fund won’t earn a return on Endocyte, however, because it awarded $4 million to the company before the IEDC changed its terms to require recipients to reimburse the fund a portion of future success.

Since 1999, the fund has invested more than $238 million in 188 projects, sparking $427 million in economic development and 11,000 jobs, according to the Ball State University Center for Business and Economic Research.

Initially, the 21st Century Fund was to be used to demonstrate that technology developed at the state’s universities could be commercialized. Grants are to help companies attract private capital as they grow.

IEDC officials say that, while 21st Century Fund funding has fallen in recent years, the fund has leveraged more private investment to recipients. The agency estimates that, on average, $3 in outside investment has flowed to firms for every $1 invested by the fund. That outside investment includes angel- and venture-capital investors.

The most important thing the state can do for businesses now “is to pass an honestly balanced budget and not raise taxes,” Indiana Secretary of Commerce Mitchell Roob Jr. said in an e-mail when asked by IBJ about the $31 million the IEDC is requesting. “Therefore a dramatic increase in funding was not sought for this biennium.”

In the fiscal year ended last June 30, the fund made direct investments of $12.7 million in 12 firms, compared with $16.3 million awarded to 11 firms the previous year.

During the last fiscal year, it also made 66 matching grants totaling $6.72 million as part of the federal Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer program. That compares with $4.9 million in matching SBIR/STTR money in the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

The federal programs promote technology and commercialization and cooperation between small business and U.S. research institutions. In 2003, the 21st Century Fund began a dollar-for-dollar state match up to $100,000.•


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. 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.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. 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.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.