Split Between US and UK Venture Capital Funds Decreases

A new report by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) has found that the gap between US and UK venture capital funds has narrowed over the last decade.

(June 1, 2011) — A new report has discovered that the performance gap in venture capital between the United States and the United Kingdom — once a significantly large divide — has gradually narrowed over the last decade.

The research by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), titled ‘Atlantic Drift: Venture Capital Performance in the UK and the US’, found that the reason for the convergence was largely due to average returns in the US declining rather than a noticeable improvement in the performance of UK funds.

“The convergence of returns has not been driven by UK funds becoming better, but by the worsening performance of US funds,” the report stated.

According to the research, the gap in fund returns between the average US and UK fund has fallen from over 20% before the dot-com bubble (funds raised in 1990-1997) to 1% afterwards (funds raised in 1998-2005). Furthermore, average returns for funds raised after the bubble in both the UK and the US have been relatively poor, but venture capital performance is likely to move upwards as venture capital funds begin to cash out their investments in social networks (particularly in the US). Thus, according to the author of the report, Josh Lerner of Harvard Business School, US funds — better positioned to profit from the emerging social media boom with generally superior investment opportunities — may forge increasingly ahead of UK funds in performance.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

As outlined in NESTA’s research, the strongest quantifiable predictors of venture capital returns performance are (a) whether the fund managers’ prior funds outperform the market benchmark; (b) whether the fund invests in early rounds; (c) whether the fund managers have prior experience; and (d) whether the fund is optimally sized (neither too big nor too small). Moreover, historical performance has been higher for funds located in one of the four largest investor hubs (Silicon Valley, New York, Massachusetts and London) and for investments in information and communication technology.

In April, research from Dow Jones into private equity and venture capital fundraising also showed a divide between the US and UK. The research noted that while private equity and venture capital fundraising was up in the US, Europe experienced a slightly less optimistic fundraising environment.

“In 2010, many private equity firms focused on trying to return capital and those efforts are starting to bring their investors back to the party,” Laura Kreutzer, managing editor of Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst, said in a statement. “But limited partners are still like bouncers at an exclusive night club. They’re only letting the best looking groups behind the velvet rope. Everyone else still has to struggle for their attention.”

Dow Jones figures revealed that private equity funds in the US secured $31.6 billion for 89 funds during the first quarter, more than double the $13.5 billion raised for 81 funds during the same period last year. Meanwhile, the data showed that while European firms collected $8.2 billion during the quarter, up 39% from the $5.9 billion raised a year earlier, the number of closings declined to 22 from 32.

In the venture capital space, which has struggled to regain its peaks from the late 1990s and early 2000s, Dow Jones found that venture capital funds in the US raised $7.7 billion in the first quarter of 2011, nearly doubling the $3.9 billion raised in the same period last year and the highest first-quarter total since 2001. European venture firms, on the other hand, raised $653 million for five funds during the first quarter, down from $1.3 billion raised for 13 funds during the same period in 2010.



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

Aon Hewitt Says Changes to UK Accounting Standards Could Massively Increase Shortfalls

Consultancy Aon Hewitt cautions that while the pensions deficit for the UK’s largest companies remained stable in May, major changes to accounting standards could increase shortfalls by £10 billion.

(June 1, 2011) — The pensions deficit for the UK’s largest companies was stable last month, yet according to Aon Hewitt, major changes to accounting standards could massively increase shortfalls by £10 billion.

The consultancy noted that the aggregate deficit for FTSE350 firms stood at £44 billion on an IAS19 accounting basis at the end of May, up from £41 billion last month. According to Aon Hewitt, changes to accounting standards — expected to be published this month — may require firms to use a predetermined formula to calculate expected returns on scheme assets, which would affect the profit and loss figures for all companies with a defined benefit scheme.

“These changes will affect all companies, producing both winners and losers,” Marcus Hurd, principal and actuary at Aon Hewitt, said. “For example, two pension funds with the same level of assets, but differing styles of investment strategy could fare completely differently when the revised calculations are introduced. A company with a low-risk investment strategy could see an additional annual profit of £15 million, while another company with a more aggressive return-seeking strategy could incur an additional annual P&L charge of £25 million. In aggregate, the total impact on UK companies could be around £10 billion. These changes will affect companies’ accounting, so they all will need to make an individual assessment and prepare accordingly.”

Aon Hewitt noted that the second expected change with regards to changes to accounting standards is the withdrawal of the option to defer gains and losses accrued by their pension scheme from their balance sheet liability, which would only impact 10% to 15% of companies. Longer-term, however, the impact on companies’ corporate balance sheets would be greater.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

In the United States, a brief released in early May by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggested that American public pensions should alter the way they calculate plan liabilities, asset values, and funding ratios. According to The Underfunding of State and Local Pension Plans, public pensions should use a fair-value method that incorporates a discount rate used on future cash flows to discern their liabilities to future workers, as opposed to the current GASB guidelines.

“For assets, the fair value is what an investor would be willing to pay for them—that is, the current market value (or an estimate when market values are unavailable); it is not the averaged, or smoothed, market values that are reported under GASB guidelines,” according to the brief. “For pension liabilities, the fair value can be thought of as what a private insurance company operating in a competitive market would charge to assume responsibility for those obligations.”



To contact the <em>aiCIO</em> editor of this story: Paula Vasan at <a href='mailto:pvasan@assetinternational.com'>pvasan@assetinternational.com</a>; 646-308-2742

«