An Open Letter to Mr. Obama on Innovation Policy

Dear Mr. President,

I feel compelled to write you a letter to express my thoughts and frustrations regarding innovation policy in our country.  While I have modest expectations that you’ll actually read this, perhaps someone in your inner circle will and represent my thoughts.

First of all, I hope that you realize how very fortunate we are as a country to have an innovation and entrepreneurial engine at the heart of our economy.  It is part of our culture and is a pervasive mind set that is the envy of the rest of the world.  Furthermore, it was not created, nor is it (currently) regulated by the government.  If you look at the venture capital industry as a proxy (since many innovative startup companies need some financial backing to prosper), one can see how important this ecosystem is.  The latest report from the National Venture Capital Association called "Venture Impact" talks about the important of venture-backed companies in the macro U.S. economy.  Among the highlights:

– Venture-backed companies employed more than 12.1 million Americans in 2008;
– Venture-backed revenues were $2.9 trillion in 2008, equating to 21 percent of US GDP; and
– Venture backed companies grew jobs and revenues faster than their non-venture counterparts from 2006-2008.

Best of all, none of this costs the government anything, nor does it require any bailouts.  The jobs created in this country are real, high paying and reflect the newest opportunities in the world economy and aren’t shipped overseas.  One would think that you would want to do everything in your power to encourage growth in the innovation sector and make sure current proposals don’t unnecessarily negatively impact this gift that our economy has been given.  So I propose to you some things that your administration should and should not do.

What your administration should do:

1. Reform immigration policy.  My partner Brad Feld wrote a post last week on the "Startup Visa Movement," based upon the earlier writings of Paul Graham.  The basic premise is this:  we should openly encourage and enable people from different countries to move to the United States, start companies and create jobs.  Clearly, there would need to be some limitations and thresholds to ensure that the companies created were "real," but I am frustrated by how many foreign founders are being forced home due to our overly-restrictive policies.  I’ve seen two companies this year in Boulder, Colorado, that would have received U.S. venture funding and stayed here, but won’t be able to.  There are many of such cases across the country.  

Also, we still don’t have a handle on the H1-B issue.  Every year, our U.S.-based investments struggle to hire all of of the computer science talent that they need and their growth is stunted.  It’s time to de-politicize the immigration debate and concentrate on ways that we can make this country’s workforce even stronger. 

2. Enact real patent reform.  There are many points of view out there – from abolishing some types of patents, to materially revising the way jurisdiction is handled in patent cases, but, regardless, the loud chorus from the innovation economy is that the patent process is not working.  Patents are too costly to obtain, are too uncertain in the rights they grant when obtained and then all too often, end up with meaningless lawsuits that amount to nothing more than a tax on innovation in favor of lawyers.  We need to clearly define what is patentable and what should not and re-architect the system to deal with the realities of a connected world.  

3. Push for FASB to "figure out" valuation methodologies.  Over the past few years, venture funds have had to "mark to market" their investments.  This "FAS 157" (or Topic 820, as it’s been recently renamed), has placed a tremendous burden on venture firm managers and their investors.  In short, not even the accountants can tell us how to accurately value our portfolios and there is tremendous cost and uncertainty about the asset class because of it.  I’ve written about the issues, here, in detail.

4. Get a handle on Sarbanes Oxley / help with opening of the capital markets.  The last financial meltdown earlier this decade brought about increased regulations through Sarbanes Oxley.  While some credit the act for deterring and lessening fraud in public companies, it’s easy when almost no companies are going public.  In my opinion, the frauds perpetrated in the most flashy cases (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) were the work of bad actors and lazy accountants.  They were not systemic in the industry and even the rules today can be easily circumvented by two unscrupulous executives with a criminal agenda.

What the effect has been is to stop the flow of companies going public which has greatly hurt venture capital returns and has driven venture firm investors (limited partners) out of the market.  This has severally constrained the amount of capital able to fund new and innovative businesses.  I think a complete review of all of these rules needs to be undertaken, as I’ve had many conversations with entrepreneurs who don’t even want to go public due to all the red tape involved with Sarbox. 

The secondary effect has been a rush to other foreign markets, whether they are in London, China or India and thus the U.S. is losing its market share of new offeringings and further weakening our financial industry.  

What your administration should NOT do:

1. Regulate the Venture Capital Industry.  We aren’t hedge funds.  Nothing we do increases "systemic risk" in the economy.  In fact, the entire VC industry invested a total last year of $28 billion dollars (not an atypical year).  That sum is less than half the amount that Bear Stearns was borrowing every night before its collapse.  Regulating us, in the best case, foists additional costs upon us that smaller, early-stage VCs can’t afford and worst case, materially and negatively impacts the VC industry’s ability to fund new companies.  Lastly, it should be noted that investors in VC funds are of the highest sophistication levels.  This isn’t the case of protecting the average investor.  The WSJ recently had a great opinion piece supporting this position

2.  Increase taxes, especially capital gain taxes.  There is quite a bit of research that shows correlations between low capital gains taxes and high GDP growth rates.  I won’t pretend to have a PhD in economics (although I did manage to get an undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in it), but many of the entrepreneurs I speak to say they specifically take the outsized risk of starting a business because of the potential financial gains.

Additionally, changing the characterization of venture capitalist’s carry is inconsistent with how VCs invest – long term with high risk of capital loss.  I also have a hard time delineating between founder shares and VC carry and wonder if VC carry is changed will founder shares be next?  The reason behind capital gains treatment was to incentivize long term investing and also to help make up losses from risky asset classes that benefit our society in the long run.  This is precisely what VCs do. 

3. Engage in activities that will devalue the dollar.  One thing to keep in mind is that with some of the current issues detailed above, it is harder and harder for VCs to raise money to fund startups.  Small businesses must do more with less.  If the dollar becomes devalued, these companies would effectively have less money to spend on hiring and other activities to make them successful in the global marketplace.

Again, Mr. President, I urge you to consider how your policy makers are taking into account one of the most important drivers of this country’s economic future.  This is not about venture capitalists:  it is about the ecosystem of innovation which venture capitalists spend their lives funding.  We’ve been blessed in this country with a large population of entrepreneurs and we need to foster this culture so that we can maintain our competitiveness as the greatest economy in the world.  To that goal, the government can largely stand out of the way and help on the margins to tweak some things that will benefit all. 

I humbly ask for your consideration. 

  • +1!

  • Also would add to your letter: Reform SEC laws – Blue Sky laws- Create an accreditation for Angel Investors (give them 100% tax breaks for start up investments), so we can begin to build a more "professional" base of Angel Investors as well as increase the number of active Angels.

    kudos to you my friend!

  • Great post and well-written letter, Jason. This represents a hugely important set of issues and it shocks me how out of touch Washington DC appears to be with the innovation economy given the quality of the people around President Obama. I wrote a blog after spending the day in DC a few months ago with my feedback after meeting with some of the political leaders:

    • I appreciate the support and really like your post, particularly:

      “Personally, I don't believe this power shift to Washington DC is entirely a good thing. In truth, it makes me very nervous that we are entering an era where public opinion and public officials are against what has made this country so great and unique in the world – the aggressive pursuit of open markets, free trade and a strong distate for regulation and government intervention in business affairs. Governments have never been good at picking winners and losers in the free market (see: Japan, collapse of). But, the reality is that this administration's ambitions are breathtaking and transformative. Business leaders have never had a stronger reason to care more about following what's going on in the halls of Washington.”

  • Thank you for the support

  • Jason, I admire you for putting this out- well done! I agree wholeheartedly on the issues you raise and in particular:

    Sarbannes-Oxley- we plan to be listing on AIM in London and piggy-backing onto the OTCQX to avoid this excessive burden of SO legislation. It costs far too damn much to comply with ($1M+) and for a younger company its a stranglehold. London is a great alternative, without the red tape and AIM is significantly quicker and lower cost than Nasdaq.
    Dollar devaluation- agree with you, but if we print trillions of paper notes this is what happens. The sheet will really hit the fan when BRIC and the Arabs dump the dollar. They're preparing to do so too, but no one is really taking this seriously in the US or considering the consequences or preparing for this eventuality. Just because there isn't an alternative currency to the Dollar yet, does not mean there won't be one. They're proceeding as per normal with their heads in the sand.

  • Nice job Jason. Thanks for taking the time to express your views, which are shared by many of us in the innovation and entrepreneurial spaces, so well. Hopefully, this will get read by someone who can make a difference or get it in front of those who can.

    • Instead of just hoping it will get read, help it to get read. <shameless plug> In less than 60 hours we got 500 voters (verifiable) to sign on to support Paul Graham's #startupvisa proposal using the service. It elevates the message when real voters in the real world attach their names to the sentiment. The original letter and supporting tweets will be sent to the White House in hard copy through connections. Just something to consider…

  • Kate Mitchell

    Jason, we all owe you thanks for speaking up so cogently. I like the umbrella of "innovation policy". That encapsulates all the job creation & US competitiveness issues that go along with it. We all need to do our part and spread the word as these issues will effect our daily lives & our industry's economics – not to mention the many entrepreneurs who won't get funded if we aren't successful. Let's not slow down a critical engine of growth just when we need it!

  • Laurence Sampson

    Jason, you like a comment on the business side as well.

    I am currently working a start up developing two new surgical tools for the urology market. The total overhaul of the healthcare system is causing dramatic ripple effects in the investment community. We are currently in a fundraising round and have run into significant resistance due to healthcare system uncertainty. One of the difficult realities of the US heathcare system is the fact that the private payer system pays for a significant portion of the medicaid system. Medicaid price fixes the procedures in the form of "Reimbursement codes", and leaves the remainder to be covered by the private pay system. It is not uncommon for a hospital to carry a loss on 80% of the procedures done. Change to a single payer system would be a disaster to the firm profitability. Additionally, there are rumors of a 6% tax on gross medical devices sales sold in the US. How many firms could withstand a 6% drop in their gross revenue without a major adjustment? What adjustment would that be in a price fixed environment? No wonder the investors are getting cold feet.

    It is hard to imagine two changes making a worse impact on the investor confidence, but there is more. FDA is undertaking a significant rewrite of the 510k device approval process. All indications are that the agency is going to return to the adversarial relationship it imposed under Kessler (the former FDA commissioner), and significantly increase the device Verification & Validation requirements. The changes I am hearing will increase the time to market by several months to years, while Europe already has a quicker and more efficient regulatory process than the US. I think everyone is interested in improving the 510k process, but care must be taken not to compromise our competitive position in the global marketplace or the development firms will simply move their development efforts elsewhere. It should be noted that these jobs are the highest paying technical jobs in the country. Biotechnology also represents the most significant venture investment, and is one of the most vibrant, and profitable industries in the US.

    • I heard similar stories from biotech investors this week at the NVCA meeting.  I agree, this just isn’t right.  Best of luck to you.

  • Pingback: Startup Visa Momentum | Mendelson's Musings()

  • Pingback: Just When You Thought It Was Safe for Venture Capital Regulation… | Mendelson's Musings()

  • Martha Leftwich

    Dear President Obama;
    What has happened to your personal values?
    By allowing a Health Care package to pass that includes a cut to the Social Security Benefits and Medicare to the ones that depends on it for survival and medical care, you have betrayed the very back bone of America.
    By allowing it to pass with a Mandate to force everyone to buy coverage from the greedy insurance companies you are giving in to a "dictatorship" controlled by them.
    You are clearly willing to penalize the very people who are struggling to "JUST" survive, to enrich the powerful insurance and drug companies
    By allowing it to pass without either a single payer or public option you will prove to the people of America that you did not tell us the truth.
    As time passes I am seeing you as a very weak person, a person that will compromise your values for the approval of the Corporations and Conservatives.
    I and millions of voters voted for you because we thought you would stand up for what you said in your speeches during your campaign, we voted for a change in Government policies, "Not a changed Barack Obama"
    Not only are you compromising the elderly, disabled, poor and minimum wage earners of America, you are compromising the Democratic Party, I do not want to believe that you are aware of the number of people you are hurting by your Conservative decisions.
    Please Mr. President !
    Either keep your word to those that voted for what they believed you would stand for, or step aside, we had eight years of broken promised and deceit and we can't allow another Presidential term to proceed that is following the same path of destruction.
    Martha Leftwich
    P.O. Box 841
    Weaver, Alabama 36277

  • Pingback: Oppose Bailouts for Venture Capital Investors | Mendelson's Musings()

  • Either keep your word to those that voted for what they believed you would stand for, or step aside, we had eight years of broken promised and deceit and we can't allow another Presidential term to proceed that is following the same path of

  • Anonymous

    That is an awfully astounding column you’ve posted.Thanks a lot for that a fantastically amazing post!nnFashion Guess HandbagsnFashion Juicy HandbagsnFashion Polo HandbagsnFashion Prada HandbagsnFashion Tory Burch HandbagsnFashion Dolce&Gabbana Handbags