Investing in Emerging Technologies

1
THE MAPLEFUND

Mark Brandt Managing Partner
March 3, 2005

• Investing in Emerging Technologies

2
Rich in Gov Funded Research
RD 25 Billion of U.S. 10
RD 51 Billion of U.S. 20
RD 47 Billion of U.S. 18
RD 14 Billion of U.S. 6
Total US 256BB
Source NSF Data 2003
3
Poor in Exposure to Venture Dollars
VC 3.2 Billion of U.S. 15
VC 7.7 Billion of U.S. 43
VC 1.0 Billion of U.S. 5
3.5x more VC goes to Ca 1.5x more VC goes to Ma
Total US 18BB
VC 1.1 Billion of U.S. 6
Source Thompson Venture Economics 2003
4
Focus Technology Centers of Excellence
(Research funding in MM)
12 Targets 5.7bb
5.8x MIT 9x Stanford 2.2x Cal
Entire West Coast 5.4bb lt 12 Targets 5.7bb
Source Autm 2003
5
RD in Ohio

• Examples of University Expenditures (1)
• Ohio-State - 416M/22nd (universities),
• Case Western Reserve 224M/56th (universities),
• University of Cincinnati - 132M/78th
  (university),
• Cleveland Clinic 109M/12th (hospitals),
• University of Akron - 48
• Ohio University - 37M,
• () Others
• 2002 Research Expenditures by Ohio Universities -
  1.1B or 3 of the country (2)

(1) Autm FY 2002 Survey (2)National Science
Foundation/SRS, Survey of RD Expenditures, FY
2002
6
Venture Capital in Ohio

• Ohio Ranks 22nd
• Midwest Comparables
• Michigan 104M, Illinois 307M, Wisconsin
  104M, Minnesota 204M, Indiana 23M, Missouri
  120M
• Major States
• Massachusetts 2.5B, California 7.6B,
  Pennsylvania 539M
• Investments in Ohio
• Investments in Medical Devices, Software,
  Telecommunications, and a few in manufacturing.
• Lacking Investments in Cleantech, Energy,
  Pharmaceuticals and Electronics.

93M
2004 NVCA Yearbook
7
Nanotechs Future in Ohio

• 21 VC investments made to companies in Ohio for
  2003
• Less than Pennsylvania, Chicago, Minnesota, and
  Missouri.
• More than Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
• Rankings
• Lux Research Ranks it 29th
• SmallTimes Ranks it 10th
• What Ohio can do to foster Nanotech
• Support entrepreneurship programs inside our
  universities.
• Smart Valley in Ohio could possibly be created.
• Invest in those that will bring and develop
  companies in Ohio.

2004 NVCA Yearbook
8
Economic Development

• 1st Fund
• 100M Private Individual Investment,
• Later 7 to15 Venture Funds are closed,
• Afterwards, 20-30 investments in Ohio with
  10M-25M put in each deal over their lifetime.
• 3b. 1/5 of the VC Funds investments being located
  in Ohio,
• 3c. 20-30 deals would cumulatively add between
  200M- 1000M respectively of economic
  development to Ohio.
• 2nd Fund
• 200M Public Investment,
• Later - 7 to15 Venture Funds are closed,
• Afterwards, 30-50 investments with 10M-25M put
  in each deal over their lifetime,
• 3b. 1/4th of the VC Funds investments being
  located in Ohio,
• 3c. 40 to 50 deals would cumulatively add between
  400M - 1250M respectively of economic
  development to OH .

9
NanoBiotechnology

• Better drug delivery
• Natural Mimicry of Nature
• Point to Point Diagnostics

10
The Maple Fund

• About Us
• Cleveland Based Seed Fund We come in early
• Emerging Tech focus
• Co-invest with tier one coastal funds
• Source deals though out the Midwest (Purdue and
  Cornell) but would love to do more in Ohio
• Rob Miles/ Mark Ratner partners
• Created Economic Development
• Say YES! to Cleveland
• The Nano Network