Are These Canadian Banks Simply Offering Dumb Entrepreneurial Venture Debt?

In one of the more bizarre recent articles on the state of the Canadian venture investment market, The Globe & Mail offered this story of the entry of Canadian commercial banks like CIBC, RBC and TD into the world of entrepreneurial finance. Not more than a few weeks ago, Toronto University Professor Richard Florida also published an opinion piece in the Globe & Mail, in sharp contrast which is entitled “Canada is losing the global innovation race”, describing the long term decline of Canadian venture capital and decades of poor investment in basic R&D compared to its other OECD industrialized nations.  Recently, a colleague in Canadian venture capital told me of his retirement, citing the enormous difficulty his firm had raising capital from the Canadian financial industry. This is prima facie evidence of how disconnected Canada is from the reality of entrepreneurial finance and venture capital. The Canadian financial industry mindset is Problem One. Name another major entrepreneurial ecosystem that operates like this.


Canada’s Entrepreneurial Finance Industry Is Living In A Bubble

In one of the more bizarre recent articles on the state of the Canadian venture investment market, The Globe & Mail offered this story of the entry of Canadian commercial banks like CIBC, RBC and TD into the world of entrepreneurial finance. Not more than a few weeks ago, Toronto University Professor Richard Florida also published an opinion piece in The Globe & Mail, in sharp contrast which is entitled “Canada is losing the global innovation race”, describing the long term decline of Canadian venture capital and decades of poor investment in basic R&D compared to its other OECD industrialized nations.  Recently, a colleague in Canadian venture capital told me of his retirement, citing the enormous difficulty his firm had raising capital from the Canadian financial industry. This is prima facie evidence of how disconnected Canada is from the reality of entrepreneurial finance and venture capital. The Canadian financial industry mindset is Problem One. Name another major entrepreneurial ecosystem that operates like this.

Banks spent 2018 fighting to give Canada’s fast-growing tech sector something it hasn’t had much taste for in years: debt.

Canadian scale-ups and venture-capital-firm partners spent much of the past year watching offers for debt financing pile higher than they can ever remember. In interviews with The Globe and Mail, founders, partners, and lenders used phrases like “slugfest” and “arms race” to describe the phenomenon. Both Canadian and American banks are racing to serve young tech companies, by improving loan terms and shoving down rates. This has reshaped how Canadian tech startups secure financing: Debt is so cheap that some small companies that would have never considered it are taking it on as a cushion, giving them extra runway between equity raises without diluting founders’ ownership.

The trend is partly a reflection of Canada’s tech sector’s coming-of-age after its post-financial-crisis doldrums. But it’s also the result of deliberate moves by two major players – one established in debt financing, the other making its return.

California’s Silicon Valley Bank is taking steps to formalize its ability to lend to Canadian clients and hopes to be fully licensed here early next year. Meanwhile, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce bought the private specialty-finance firm Wellington Financial in January with ambitions to better serve early- and mid-stage companies with broader banking services. In Wellington, CIBC found a team of experienced tech bankers after Canadian institutions largely shed that expertise in the long tail of the dot-com bust; in CIBC, Wellington found a lower cost of capital thanks to its scale, making debt cheaper to sell for clients.

While both players offer a suite of banking services, it’s been their debt offers that caused jaws to drop in Canada’s tech community in 2018 – and has pushed other lenders, including Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Montreal, to try harder to entice startups with similar offerings.

While no one interviewed for this story would share numbers on specific rate offers they’d seen – rates vary across lenders as well as by company size, stage and revenue model – they all agreed that the past year saw remarkable drops in cost of capital. Two sources who were not authorized to share confidential rate proposals said that interest rate offers had fallen from 15 to 20 per cent a year ago, but now hover between 10 and 15 per cent, sometimes falling as low as 6 per cent.

“Entrepreneurs 10 years ago wouldn’t have known about venture debt – now they know about it,” says Mark Usher, the veteran technology banker who is managing director and North American market leader for CIBC Innovation Banking – Wellington’s new moniker – and chair of the Canadian Venture Capital & Private Equity Association.

Mr. Usher cautions that founders should be careful and seek the advice of their investors and board when considering debt financing – and warns, too, that the super-competitive Canadian market is not sustainable in the long run. “It will normalize back to historical returns and rates,” he says. “Venture-debt lenders will take losses at some point, then they’ll realize that they weren’t charging enough to make up for the losses, and that’s how it corrects.”

Many in the sector suggest the first sign of the shifting Canadian venture-debt ecosystem happened in March, when Vancouver social-media company Hootsuite Media Inc. signed a $50-million deal with the newly minted CIBC Innovation Banking, having previously largely worked with Silicon Valley Bank. (The American bank says Hootsuite also remains a current client.)

“Even if we never use it, it’s just a nice cushion, and it really doesn’t cost that much to have it,” says Sid Paquette, a managing partner at OMERS Ventures, who oversees the firm’s investment in Hootsuite. “At almost all of my companies … I’m doing a disservice if I don’t encourage them to take on a little bit of debt right now, because it is so cheap.”

Since then, venture-capital partners and tech executives say, the debt rally in Canada has been adopted by firms of all sizes and stages. Janet Bannister, general partner at Real Ventures in Toronto – which focuses on early-stage investments – says that many companies in her portfolio and on her radar are taking on debt financing, largely to accelerate growth without diluting owners’ stakes.

“The banks are increasingly saying, ‘We need to be the banking partners of these young companies, because some of them are going to grow up and be the next Shopify,’” Ms. Bannister says. Still companies need to be prepared for the debt, she says. “If the interest expenses become so onerous that they are impacting growth by forcing the company to curtail spending on things such as development, sales and-or marketing, that can become a problem.”

Bryn Jones, the co-founder of PartnerStack, a Toronto firm that helps software companies grow through partnerships, has spent the last few months evaluating term sheets. “The only banks that really cared before were from the Bay Area,” Mr. Jones says. Now, he continues, “everybody wants to get into it.” The phenomenon has been helpful for companies such as ChatKit, a Toronto e-commerce chat-marketing startup, which did a debt-financing round with CIBC Innovation Banking last July, says founder and chief executive Mazdak Rezvani. “To build a successful Series A round, you need metrics to appeal to an investor. A few extra months of runway really helps.”

Since the debt-rate battle began earlier this year, “all of the banks now have a tech-lending focus and strategy,” says Mr. Usher. His own firm, CIBC Innovation Banking, even hired tech financier Robert Rosen away from American rival Comerica Inc., a long-time leader in offering debt financing for Canadian startups.

Banks’ embrace of tech companies has in some cases turned into a talent war. Devon Dayton, who’d been a part of CIBC’s technology push, left to join the Bank of Montreal in April, just three months after the Wellington deal. He says he’s now charged with “accelerating” BMO’s tech coverage, including both through banking services and providing debt capital to the sector.

Royal Bank of Canada, meanwhile, turned to established Toronto tech lender Espresso Capital in August to partner for venture-debt deals. Espresso has funded more than 230 deals since 2009, the company says, and recently established a new program to lend to software-as-a-service cloud companies up to 24 times their monthly recurring revenue in growth financing, to a maximum of $10-million.

“For the longest time we were the beneficiary of a massively under-served market,” says Alkarim Jivraj, Espresso’s chief executive. Amid what he calls a “slugfest” between banks to offer debt, he says, “we continue to grow, even with the noise around us.”

A rash of Canadian debt-funding options have emerged, in fact, offering loans on such highly specific terms. Toronto’s Fundthrough offers cash advances between clients’ invoices; Clearbanc, co-founded by serial entrepreneur and Dragons’ DenDragon Michele Romanow – and which just raised US$120-million – helps finance young e-commerce businesses by fronting online ad revenue. “How you fund your company probably ends up being the most important decision you make as a founder,” Ms. Romanow says. “With equity, you never get to give it back …. Coming up with as much alternatives around that is really powerful.”

Silicon Valley Bank, which serviced Canadian businesses for about a dozen years but until recently, did so largely from offices in Seattle and Boston, is looking forward to a formal Canadian licence from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

“What the licence will give us in the new year is the opportunity to have feet on the street [and] meet with clients and investors in a more proactive kind of way,” says Barbara Dirks, the bank’s Canadian head. Her colleague Win Bear, who long worked for the lender’s Boston office, says that it’s a historic moment for startup financing – not just in Canada.

“There’s a lot more competition​,” Mr. Bear says. “It’s really driven down pricing, much in the same way that increased competition on the growth equity side has increased valuations up to levels that some would argue are unprecedented.”

Reid Hoffman: Venture Capitalist Loser | MIT Technology Review

An insightful interview with Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist and founder of LinkedIn. But to my mind, Hoffman seems blase’ about Big Ideas and “deep tech” funding. I share the views of Startup Genome founder, Max Marmer, and bemoan the limited focus of VC’s on world-changing technologies, leaving it to billionaire angels. I also sense myopia about the ongoing intense debate over the distortion of the sharing economy by Uber, Airbnb, and others.


UPDATE: Since I wrote this post last week, on November 25th, events swiftly unfolded to underscore the points I made in criticism of Reid Hoffman’s views on venture capital, in his interview with the MIT Technology Review. Bill Gates and a host of global leaders, Silicon Valley industry leaders, and high-tech billionaires announced the Clean Tech Initiative, at the opening of the UN COP21 Climate Change Conference.  This initiative precisely makes my point that venture capitalists like Reid Hoffman fail to see their social responsibility, or to examine the ethics of their investments.  At the time I wrote the opening paragraph to this post (below), I had absolutely no idea that my points would be validated by Bill Gates, Obama, and high-tech industry leaders  Meg Whitman of HP, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, Alibaba Chairman Jack Ma, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Ratan Tata, retired chairman of India’s Tata Sons, the holding company of the Tata group, and South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe of African Rainbow Minerals.  I would now go so far to say that Hoffman’s views are an embarrassment to himself in the face of the vision of others.

BillGates

READ MORE: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos And A Host of Others Announce Clean Tech Initiative

An insightful interview with Reid Hoffman, venture capitalist and founder of LinkedIn. But to my mind, Hoffman seems blase’ about Big Ideas and “deep tech” funding. I share the views of Startup Genome founder, Max Marmer, and bemoan the limited focus of VC’s on world-changing technologies, leaving it to billionaire angels. I also sense a myopia about the ongoing intense debate over the distortion of the sharing economy by Uber, Airbnb, and others.  Thanks to Gary Reischel for posting this article on his Facebook page.

My attention is focused on two privately funded Big Idea entrepreneurial ventures in Vancouver B.C., General Fusion, and D-Wave.  General Fusion and at least two other companies in California and Germany are competing against the two massively funded governmental nuclear fusion projects, ITER at Cadarache in France, and The National Ignition Facility at the U.S.  Department of Energy’s Livermore National Labs. D-Wave, is pioneering quantum computing, having successfully sold two early quantum computers to Google and Lockheed Martin/NASA in Silicon Valley.

Max Marmer…read more: Reversing The Decline In Big Ideas

Read More mayo615: Are Venture Capitalists and Big Ideas Converging Again?

 

Source: Venture Capital in Transition | MIT Technology Review

Reid Hoffman has worked the entire tech startup ecosystem: he cofounded LinkedIn in 2002, used the money he made there to become one of Silicon Valley’s most prolific angel investors, invested early in Facebook, Zynga, and many others, and is now a venture capitalist at Greylock Partners. At Greylock, which he joined in 2009, Hoffman has focused his investments on consumer Internet companies that use software to create networks of millions of users, such as the home-sharing site Airbnb.

Startup incubators that nurture entrepreneurs’ early ideas, super-angels who invest small amounts in large numbers of early-stage companies, and project crowdfunding via Internet sites such as Kickstarter are all presenting alternatives to traditional VCs. Hoffman thinks firms like his can compete by providing services such as dedicated teams that recruit engineers and holding dozens of networking and educational events to help startups get big faster. He’s currently teaching a Stanford University class for entrepreneurs in “blitzscaling,” his term for the rapid scaling up of startups.

Hoffman spoke with MIT Technology Review contributing editor Robert Hof about why that’s especially important today and whether enough investing is being done in core technologies such as computer science, networking, and semiconductors.

How have changes in technology altered the way you invest?
Starting a software company is now a lot cheaper and faster than it used to be, thanks to Amazon Web Services, open-source software, and the ability to build an app on iOS or Android. Speed to realizing a global opportunity is more critical competitively. I wanted to build out a [venture capital] platform that was appropriate to the modern age of entrepreneurship.

VCs have always provided help on networking and hiring. How is your platform different?

Think about how an application gets built on iOS. It calls up services on Apple’s platform, such as a graphics framework or how to create a dialog box. Similarly, a business gets built by hiring people, developing its product or service, growing its revenues. The modern venture firm needs to provide a set of services that the company can call upon. We have a dedicated team to recruit engineers and product people. We have more than a dozen communities of people from big Valley companies like Apple and Facebook focused on technical topics such as big data and user growth. They meet with our companies to teach things like growth hacking, the use of social media, and other low-cost alternatives for marketing.

“There are still billions of people coming online. Also, software is affecting almost every industry … And we’re just beginning to see how data informs everything.”

How long will these software-driven networks you’re focused on be good investing opportunities?

There are still billions of people coming online. Also, software is affecting almost every industry, from transportation, with Uber and self-driving cars, to personalized medicine, health, and genetics. And we’re just beginning to see how data informs everything. Those trends are in the very early innings, so they’re the ones that will have the macroeconomic impact over the next five to 10 years.

You’ve said you don’t think there’s a bubble in tech investing, but surely not all these upstarts are worth so much?

People are so exuberant about finding their way to the cutting-edge companies that valuations are going up across the board. Some companies are so massively valuable that even when you invest in them at an accelerated valuation, they’re still cheap in retrospect. But many companies are given [high] valuations when they actually shouldn’t be.

I don’t think higher valuations in private [venture capital fund-raising] rounds lead to a massive [public] market correction. A private down round [fund-raising that values the company at a lesser amount than the previous round] doesn’t destabilize the public capital markets. But it’s still pretty frothy. So when you’re seeing inflated valuations, you sit it out.

Have you been sitting out more often?
We’ve passed on many more deals in the past two years.

Is true innovation beyond slick apps being financed to the extent it should?
Markets tend to go toward realizable, short-term rewards that require little capital.

That tends to favor pure-play software companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Uber that have global reach and network effects [in which a service becomes much more valuable as more people use it]. If more capital naturally flowed toward deep tech, I think that would be a good thing for the world. But you do have SpaceX, you do have Tesla. Deep tech isn’t that starved for capital.

VC investing is way up, but the traditional exit, the IPO, often comes after a company has already grown quite large. As a result, public investors, as well as employees don’t share as much of the increase in value. Is that a problem?
It used to be, back in 1993–’96, tech companies would go public and then public market shareholders would benefit from the huge growth in valuations. Now it’s more the private investors who benefit. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.

Doesn’t that go against the idea that employee stock options and so on will democratize wealth, or at least spread it more broadly?
Ideally, you’d like to make the capital returns available to everybody, not just to the folks who can participate in these elite private funds or elite private financings. I’d rather have it democratized. But on the other hand, it makes complete sense from a company perspective to delay liquidity, because they can run much more efficiently as a private company and get as much momentum as possible.

The Changing Landscape of Entrepreneurial Finance: Or Is It?

This is the best info-graphic I have seen on the historical evolution of venture capital, from the early days of Arthur Rock to the current trend of “platform” investors offering the “everything in a box” approach to entrepreneurial investment. The evolving venture capital models are overlayed onto a trend graph of the cost of startups contrasted with the number of startups. At first glance one might accept the now common refrain that traditional “venture capital is dead.” When I began my career in Silicon Valley, the typical entrepreneurial growth company needed $5 to $10 Million dollars to launch itself. Today, the argument is that a promising company can be started on $5000 or less, and competitors eager to serve this new market have mushroomed. But is this really the future?


VCfuture-of-vc

This is the best info-graphic I have seen on the historical evolution of venture capital, from the early days of Arthur Rock to the current trend of “platform” investors offering the “everything in a box” approach to entrepreneurial investment.  The evolving venture capital models are overlayed onto a trend graph of the cost of startups contrasted with the number of startups.  At first glance one might accept the now common refrain that traditional “venture capital is dead.”  When I began my career in Silicon Valley, the typical entrepreneurial growth company needed $5 to $10 Million dollars to launch itself.  Today, the argument is that a promising company can be started on $5000 or less, and competitors eager to serve this new market have mushroomed.  But is this really the future?

Two recent PBS documentaries, one on the genesis of Silicon Valley in the early 1960’s, and the other about the emergence of venture capital in the same period, something unheard of prior to that time, underscore my point.

If we are to pursue the Big Ideas, can they be funded with $5000 and a “package” of services?  I doubt it.  Examples to the contrary are available right here in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.  Quantum computing startup D-Wave, and nuclear fusion startup General Fusion, are prima facie evidence that traditional venture capital big money and expertise cannot be supplanted by an Alberta oil baron looking for a cheap risk investment.  Angel investors, even as birds of feather, do not possess the financial clout or expertise to make Big Ideas happen.

I also believe that the $5000 startup investment cost trend is not the future. It is directly related to the current infatuation with Web apps as the new frontier, rather than Big Ideas like quantum computing, clean tech, renewable energy or nuclear fusion,

PandoDaily has this week also published two stories on venture capital, launching a debate about the future of venture capital.   It is worth following.

Personally, I endorse Sarah Lacy’s defense of “venture capital classic.”

A rare defense of venture capital classic

Sarah_Lacy_6x6BY 

REBLOGGED From Pandodaily

ON AUGUST 30, 2013

OldSchool

One of our most popular stories this week was about the future of venture capital. It traced the asset class’s history from its boutique roots to the age of mega-brands to the rage around international expansion and into the last few years of microVCs, super angels, and accelerators. The article argued that “platforms” were the future of venture capital. Indeed, we’ve written before about efforts that Andreessen Horowitz and First Round Capital are undertaking to be more service oriented — through armies of people or software, respectively.

I grant a lot of the points Erin made in that post — particularly relating to the necessary change the industry has gone through as a result of startups becoming dramatically more capital efficient. As evidence of big systemic changes, she cites a lot of people more experienced than I.

But as an entrepreneur, I couldn’t help but groan at the concept of venture firms becoming “platforms.” Respectfully, I need a venture capital “platform” like I need a hole in the head.

You know what works in venture capital? A group of incredibly smart, connected people who have the financial wherewithal and risk appetite to make multi-million dollar bets on unproven ideas and inexperienced founders. People who can make decisions quickly, and who spend their time trying to help entrepreneurs make the most of that cash.

That’s it. I don’t care what decade we are in or what wave of technology we are talking about. That’s it.

Watch “Something Ventured,” PBS’s excellent documentary about the earliest VCs. You’ll see pretty much the same qualities that make up the best investors today also made Arthur Rock the man who helped fund Fairchild Semiconductor and Apple. They are the same qualities that encouraged Don Valentine to take a risk on weirdo Atari back when the idea of playing video games at home was scoffed at by nearly everyone else. These qualities epitomize Tom Perkins’ bet-the-firm risks on Tandem and Genentech.

Yes, things have changed about venture capital since those halcyon days of silicon assembly lines and fruit orchards. Typical venture firms invest later and get far smaller stakes than they did 50 years ago. Deal flow is far less proprietary in an age of demo days, tech blogs, and AngelList. And we’ve learned that many people are just awful at the job of venture capital. We’re in the middle of a decade-plus long incredibly slow shake-out of zombie firms that have chronically underperformed the market. The dramatically low costs of starting a company have given new access to entrepreneurs of all skill sets, geographies, ages, and risk-appetites that the industry certainly didn’t see 50 years ago.

All of this is mostly good for entrepreneurs, and has forced VCs to prove that elusive “value add” they always talk about.

But VCs who perform well aren’t doing it, because they are jumping on the bandwagon of new marketing trends. They are doing it because they are good VCs the way Arthur Rock, Don Valentine, and Tom Perkins were good VCs. They take risk. They coach entrepreneurs. The respect an entrepreneur’s plan, even if it deviates from their own. And most of all — they have millions to invest in each company.

No matter how much we want to go on and on (and on) about how cheap it is to start a company these days, actually building a sustainable company has never been more expensive. Venture studies show the time and money it takes to get public are longer and higher than ever before.

It’s no wonder that the flood of accelerators and seed funds and angels on that chart we published earlier this week immediately predated the so-called Series A crunch. Did these firms revolutionize how many people could raise seed capital? Yep. But ultimately the vast majority of those efforts still need good old fashioned venture capital to keep going. And that’s still in short supply. Indeed, it’s indecreasing supply.

I’m not arguing that recruiting partners and marketing partners and new ways to leverage other members of a given portfolio aren’t good things. But at best, they are icing on the cake. If you are deciding between two great firms, perhaps it tips the scales. And in terms of returns, that’s not trivial. This is a home run business, and the difference between almost getting Facebook and getting Facebook is a multi-billion “almost.”

But entrepreneurs wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) go with a firm they get a bad vibe from simply because they have someone in house who can help you hire people. They should go with a firm, because they trust that partner to stand by them and give them the unvarnished truth and material support in good times and bad.

And, by the way, as is almost always the case when it comes to Silicon Valley, it bears noting thatnone of this is new. The late 1990s saw talk of keiretsus and marketing partners and accelerators and incubators. Likewise, a desire to go international has come and gone a few times in the venture business. Even crowd funding had roots in Draper Fisher Jurvetson’s ill fated “meVC” fund.

Sure a lot of these trends are being explored today in more sober and sustainable ways. But the ideas aren’t new, just as the idea of classic risk capital isn’t an anachronism.

At our July PandoMonthly, Bill Gurley said that every time a venture capitalist opens his mouth these days, he’s marketing himself and his firm and how they are different. How much more entrepreneur friendly they are than the next guy. Ignore the marketing — just pick a good partner.

[Disclosure: Mentioned in this story are First Round Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. Josh Kopelman of First Round and Marc Andreessen, Jeff Jordan, and Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz are investors in PandoDaily.]

REBLOGGED From PandoDaily

BY  
ON AUGUST 28, 2013

The dramatic drop in the cost of creating a company over the last decade ($2 million in the late ’90s to maybe $5,000 today) has had an obvious effect on the venture capital world. Serious venture investment is not required in the earliest stages of a company’s life, so angel investors have been getting the best seed deals. That spawned “super angels” and their subsequent micro-VC funds, which in turn evolved into crowdfunding platforms like AngelList.

Meanwhile, old school venture firms with their ten-year investment vehicles and mostly mediocre returns are realizing that money is a commodity. It echoes statements made by Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, who predicts that venture capital as we know it won’t be around in ten years.

Good founders can get capital anywhere. So they’re choosing the firms that will help them the most. That’s why some VC firms, like Andreessen Horowitz, have adopted agency-like models, where they provide in-house PR, marketing and recruiting. Others, like First Round Capital, are building acommunity-driven platform that allows its portfolio companies to share knowledge and help each other.

VCs are even becoming publishers — First Round recently launched its “First Round Review.” Andreessen Horowitz hired Wired editor Michael Copeland to produce content for its site. Battery Ventures hired former Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Buckman for a similar role.

As Alex Bangash put it, “VCs are becoming platforms and platforms are becoming VCs.”

He would know — Bangash has acted as a fixer of sorts for institutional investors and venture firms over the last decade. He’s also built his own platform, a site called Trusted Insight. (Since Bangash made the chart, he’s obviously included his own platform on it, to the far right.)

The site might be the largest social network for limited partners, i.e., the pension funds, universities, family offices and institutions that invest in venture, private equity, real estate and hedge funds. Today he publicly unveiled it for the first time.

Trusted Insight has eight employees and has raised a small amount of funding from Data Collective, Founders Fund, RRE Ventures, Morado Ventures, Real Ventures, 500 Startups, Alexis Ohanian, Garry Tan, Eric Chen, Lauder Partners, Jon Moulton, and Marleen Groen.

The site has 58,000 registered users representing trillions of investment dollars, which is an impressive number when you consider how small the global pool of alternative asset limited partners is. Bangash estimates that a third of the world’s alternative asset investment managers are on the site.

Couple that with how insanely private they are. As a reporter, I know all too well how hard it is to track these people down. They make themselves difficult to find on purpose, mostly because they don’t need to promote themselves, and they don’t want to be harassed by fund managers begging for capital. “LPs want a new deal like they want a hole in their head,” Bangash says.

Limited partners are like the Field of Dreams of the investment world. I can remember the private equity conferences we threw at Buyouts magazine. As long as we got the big-name LPs to sign on, we knew the fund managers, service providers and various other industry hangers-on would be there. After all, the LPs are the ones holding the purse strings.

Through Bangash’s connections and word-of-mouth, a large population of them have signed up for his service. Around 60 percent of them return each month.

There they can network with contacts, get a serving of personalized news tailored to their interests and activity on the site, and see job postings and events that are relevant to them. There is also vouching, and users keep a much smaller circle of connections than on a typical social network.

Bangash is not planning to pimp them out to fund managers desperate for investment dollars, per se.  ”It’s built for them, to make them comfortable,” he says. He’s monetizing with a LinkedIn model. Users such as GPs raising funds, or service providers like lawyers, can pay a subscription fee for access to premium features, which includes the ability to interact with LPs. It’s akin to the way recruiters (and others) can pay LinkedIn to get messaging access to anyone they want. Since rolling out the paid tools six weeks ago, Bangash says he’s been surprised that more LPs than anyone have signed up to pay.

Bangash’s goal is to have investment professionals in the alternative asset sector use his site to do their jobs every day. As VC evolves from venture capital to venture platform, he’ll be there waiting.

[Disclosure: Mentioned in this story are First Round Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. Josh Kopelman of First Round and Marc Andreessen, Jeff Jordan and Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz are investors in PandoDaily.]