Will Unprofitable Zipcar Be Another Webvan?

June 1, 2010

Zipcar’s IPO is likely to be an interesting test for clean-tech investing.

The company doesn’t make lithium batteries or solar cells. But it capitalizes on the same green product trends slowly taking shape in the United States and around the world.

Zipcar made a name for itself by convincing people to drive less and rely on car sharing networks when they do. And while it has racked up impressive sales, it is spilling red ink like an underwater oil well and forecasts more losses this year and possibly in the next several to come. So will it be a clean-tech Webvan or eventually a money gusher?

Zipcar had revenue of $131.2 million in 2009, but losses of $4.6 million. More red ink is on the way.

Wall Street may find out later this year as Zipcar said Tuesday it will sell about $75 million of stock to the public.

Some observers suggest the reception could be good despite the losses. Zipcar has built a brand and its cars are increasingly visible in the Bay Area, says Silicon Valley consultant Louis Gray. More importantly, losses at the company have been cut by more than half in the past year while revenue growth is about 30 percent a year.

Some companies “choose growth and seize opportunity” instead of hold down costs to generate profits, Gray says.

But professional investors are cautious. The company doesn’t have a new technology that differentiates it from its rivals – which are low-margin rental companies, such as Avis or Hertz, said one who asked to remain anonymous. It needs to show it can make money from invested capital – perhaps by selecting a typical market, such as San Francisco, and demonstrating  it can turn a profit. Then the task would be to translate that success into a formula it can apply to other markets.

“You don’t want to be another Webvan” and sacrifice profits for unrestrained growth, he said. The online grocer went bankrupt during the 2001 dot-com crash when it found it couldn’t turn a profit.

The venture capital-backed company claims its opportunities for expansion are stunning. Zipcar already operates what it claims is the world’s largest car sharing network, with operations in 13 metropolitan areas and on 150 university campuses in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom. It rents cars to a self-service clientele of 400,000 members, who pick them up in reserved parking spots and pay by the hour, or day.

Zipcar claims in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission it has identified 100 metropolitan areas across the globe ripe for expansion. “Given our estimate that ten million driving age residents, business commuters and university community residents live or work within a short walk of a Zipcar, we believe the adoption in our current cities represents only a small fraction of the existing market opportunity,” the filing states.

According to a Frost & Sullivan estimate contained in the document, the car-sharing market could amount to $3.3 billion by 2016.

However, building a profitable business is anything by assured. Revenue was $131.2 million in 2009 before the April acquisition of U.K.’s Streetcar. (Streetcar had revenue of $23.1 million.) Yet the company lost $4.6 million, an improvement from $14.5 million in 2008.

“We expect to incur net losses in 2010 (and) we do not know if our business operations will become profitable or if we will continue to incur net losses in 2011 and beyond. We expect to incur significant future expenses as we develop and expand our business,” according to the SEC filing.

The losses come on top of an accumulated deficit of $56.4 million, with $26.9 million in long-term debt. (Zipcar hopes to pay down this debt with the money from the IPO.)

Still, the company has no trouble calculating a positive value for its stock. That value was $3.49 in July 31, 2009 and $4.37 at the end of December.

With improving financial markets and lower risks in the company’s business the value rose to $5.27 by March 2010, Zipcar says in its filing. It will be interesting to see how accurate the estimate is as losses continue to pile up and investor faith is tested.


Green Tech Will Reinvent The Infrastructure Of The World, Says Vinod Khosla

April 30, 2010

It is hard to predict when green energy technologies such as solar, wind and biofuel will be cheaper than oil and coal.

Khosla Ventures will make more money from the Amyris Biotechnologies IPO than it has invested so far, says VC Vinod Khosla

But when they are, watch out. “We will fundamentally reinvent the infrastructure of the world,” says top clean-tech venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. “This is about changing assumptions.”

Khosla, who was interviewed at the GreenNet conference in San Francisco, said that once the cost of green energy is competitive with fossil fuels, Wall Street financiers will pour money into projects, eager for big returns. The reinvention of the infrastructure will take place over 10 to 15 years, he said.

Khosla defended the investment portfolio he’s accumulated since turning his attention to green tech about five years ago. He admitted he hasn’t yet made money with clean-tech start-ups.

But he vowed, just like the Wall Street moneymen, he would eventually rake in big bucks – green from green, you might say. “I’m pretty confident we will,” he said.  Already the book value of the portfolio – an estimate of its market value – is higher than the amount of money his firm, Khosla Ventures, invested.

Earlier this month, Amyris Biotechnologies, one of his biofuels firms, filed to go public. It should be a success, Khosla said. “We will make more money with this than we invested so far.”

He’s equally confident about his other companies. Half will bring positive returns to Khosla Ventures, he predicted, a high hit rate for a venture fund.

So what technologies does Khosla see as ripe for investment? LED lighting is attractive with breakthroughs possible, he said. Clean coal is another area he is investigating.


Clean Tech Investing Is Weak In Fourth Quarter As Jitters Continue

December 31, 2009

Venture capitalists appeared to defy expectation in the fourth quarter by cutting back on clean tech investments despite an infusion of government capital.

With the federal government pouring billions into green tech firms developing advanced batteries, solar cells, electric cars and smart-grid technologies, venture capitalists were expected to follow suit. Private money was supposed to follow public, giving a boost an industry that hopes to wean the nation off energy generated from fossil fuels.

But an early look at the investment figures show otherwise. The National Venture Capital Association and Dow Jones VentureSource will release their market assessments in several weeks. But Greentech Media offered a first take on Thursday, and the picture wasn’t pretty.

Venture firms invested about $910 million during the fourth quarter, down from $1.9 billion in third quarter and $1.2 billion in the second. First quarter investing during the height of the recession was $836 million.

The weak quarter suggests continued uncertainty at venture houses such as NEA, Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Foundation Capital, NGEN Partners and Draper Fisher Jurvetson, among the nation’s top green tech investors.

In a press release, Greentech Media tried to put a brave face on the results. It pointed out that overall investing for the year came to $4.85 billion, down from $7.6 billion in a record 2008, but that the total number of deals in 2009 – 356 – actually grew.

It also pointed out that solar deals again captured the interest of the moneymen, attracting almost a third of the dollars. Next in line were biofuels companies, which took in $976 million.

But the weak quarter will put pressure on the sector in 2010, if it hopes to regain the momentum it saw in 2007. Many venture capitalists cite green tech as the most attractive opportunity around. But that excitement hasn’t yet translated into check writing.

For that to happen, the price of oil may need to inflate another $20 or so. Or at least VCs need to believe it will.


John Doerr Names His Top Green Investment Ideas

November 18, 2009

Green tech investing is not for the faint of heart. Competing takes money (lots of it), patience and technical know-how (lots of it, too).

In its formative pre-public years, Google required only $25 million of venture capital. Secretive fuel-cell start-up Bloom Energy has already raised $250 million. And after seven years it is still in stealth development. Another two years may be needed.

Green tech investing takes more money and its take more time, says venture capitalist John Doerr

Green tech investing “takes more money (and) it takes more time,” says legendary venture capitalists John Doerr. “You’re messing with atoms and molecules.”

Nevertheless, Doerr says he’s got patience – and the expectation of handsome returns.

At the GreenBeat 2009 conference, Doerr laid out his favorite investment themes and dropped the news that smart grid start-up Silver Spring Networks could go public next year.

“I hope it does,” he said of the company he funded at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

When it comes to his favorite investment ideas, Doerr highlighted:

*Low cost ways to make biofuels;
*Innovations in large-scale grid energy storage;
*Solar cell development to achieve price parity with fossil fuels;
*And technology to lower the cost of wind turbines.

In the area of next-generation lighting, Doerr says he has found nothing of interest yet. But then, there is always tomorrow.


Desktop Virtualization Said To Cut Energy Costs By 40 Percent

September 2, 2009

Desktop virtualization has parallels to the classic Samuel Beckett play “Waiting for Godot.”

In the 1950s tragicomedy, Estragon and Valdimir wait endless for Godot. But much like the market for desktop virtualization, this visitor never arrives.

Energy savings can reach 40 percent with virtualized thin-client desktops

Energy savings can reach 40 percent with virtualized thin-client desktops

That is until now. According to IBM, desktop virtualization is finally beginning to capture the attention of corporate IT departments – and energy savings is one reason why.

Between 60 percent and 70 percent of Fortune 500 companies are evaluating the technology and about 15 percent have implementations underway, says Jan Jackman, vice president of global EUS and cloud infrastructure.

The reasons are varied. Companies using thin-client computers with virtualized work environments can cut expenses by 30 to 60 percent and improve data security. Desktop support costs fall and in general users make 40 percent fewer help-center calls.

Energy consumption is another attraction among top corporate execs eager to demonstrate an environmental consciousness. Full-featured desktop machines burn 200 watts or more, but bare-bones thin-clients soak up only 20.

The energy savings can amount to 40 percent, says Jackman. This is what IBM achieved when it installed virtualized thin clients among its developers in China about a year ago, she said.

The desktop virtualization business is “really stepping up the pace,” Jackman said. Saving energy is part of the explanation.


Trying To Make Windows 7 Green Is No Easy Task

September 1, 2009

Down deep, Microsoft believes Windows 7, its latest operating system, will be more energy efficient than its predecessor.

Laptop batteries will run longer and need less frequent recharging. Desktop machines will suck less electricity from the wall socket.

But trying to determine exactly how much power will be saved is a difficult question to answer. That’s because it depends a great deal on how computer makers design and build the new machines that run the OS, which is due out Oct. 22.

One laptop may be small and light, and sacrifice power savings for reduced size and weight. Another might be built for speed, with higher performance components and less concern about energy conservation.

That’s why “we don’t have that as part of our discussion today,” said Michael Angiulo, a Microsoft general manager who offered a technical briefing Tuesday in San Francisco on the software’s efficiency. Power savings will vary machine to machine.

Efficiency improvements and better life will depend on teh choices computer manufacturers make, says Microsofts Michael Angiulo

Efficiency improvements and better life will depend on teh choices computer manufacturers make, says Microsoft's Michael Angiulo

Under the hood, Windows 7 does have some features that make it greener than its predecessor, Windows Vista.

One advance is called “timer coalescing,” which better schedules the work a processor does. Tasks are grouped and sent to a processor core simultaneously so the processor finishes jobs quicker and returns itself to a deep sleep. Microsoft worked on the technology with chipmaker Intel.

Better software management techniques also play a role. The management software allows a processor to be scaled up to higher energy states when that extra performance is needed and not before.

In one demo, a laptop running a DVD achieved 20 percent better battery life with Windows 7 than with Windows Vista.

Another demo showed Windows 7 booting in just 11 seconds, saving battery power in the process. “This shows what system manufacturers can do,” said Ruston Panabaker, principal program manager. The computer was built around a laboratory “reference design” from Intel and ran high performance hardware.

So how soon will commercially available PCs see the same startup speeds? The answer is not easy to know. “We’re not the people to answer that question,” said Angiulo. It depends on the OEMs.


Energy Saving Plan For Data Centers Focuses On Memory Chips

August 26, 2009

It is no secret that powerful data centers, like the ones operated by Google and Yahoo, soak up a great deal of energy.

Samsung Says DDR3 and solid-state drives can lower server energy use by 10 percent

Samsung Says DDR3 and solid-state drives can lower server energy use by 10 percent

By 2011, in fact, data centers in the United States are expected to consume 3 percent of the nation’s electricity – in other words a substantial amount of power. With that energy use will come greenhouse gas emissions.

Finding new data center efficiencies is a multi-front effort. Some companies hope to achieve new efficiencies in the equipment used to cool these information-crunching facilities. Others hope to supply green electricity from renewable sources.

On Tuesday, Samsung suggested an approach that relies on cutting-edge memory chips that do more with less power. Samsung is a maker of memory chips, so it is no surprise the company would focus here. But its arguments are worth considering.

The South Korean company says that if data-center servers used its latest DDR3 memory in place of the DRAM chips commonly used today and solid-state drives based on NAND flash memory instead of hard disk drives the power savings could top 10 percent.

Driving the effectiveness of DDR3 is 40-nm manufacturing, which creates smaller circuits that reply on less electricity.

While concerns over reliability and longevity have dogged the adoption of solid-state drives, replacing a hard disk with SSD can cut power use by 70 percent, the company said. Higher costs have also held back the market.

Still, with energy use a growing concern at data centers large and small, server memory may indeed come to play a role in lowering power needs. And it may happen sooner rather than later.


What’s Hot According To The Media: Netbooks, Privacy, But Maybe Not Web 2.0

December 4, 2008

Netbooks? Hard to use. Google? Get ready for adolescence. What about green tech and Web 2.0?  Are they real?

Its time for a new discussion of online privacy, says John Markoff

It's time for a new discussion of online privacy, says John Markoff

The Silicon Valley press had its say Wednesday evening at a Computer History Museum event entitled: the Media Predicts 2009. Here is what we learned:

“If you look at TechCrunch, I’ve scrubbed the word Web 2.0 from the site,” said J. Michael Arrington, the founder of the site that (at least up to now) has chronicled the rise of Web 2.0. Suggesting there was little substance behind the flash, Arrington added, “I don’t know what Web 2.0 was.”

Not surprisingly, his views met with disagreement from other panelists. Web 2.0 is open interfaces and open tools that have allowed people to “put things together in lego-like fashion,” ventured John Markoff of The New York Times.

And with ultra-low cost publishing and some interactivity, it has changed politics, the media and next it will change the way people will do their jobs, said others.

Netbooks are hard to use, says J. Michael Arrington

Netbooks are hard to use, says J. Michael Arrington

What about green-tech investing? “It’s going to grind to a halt for some time,” predicted Mark Veverka, the West Coast editor at Barron’s. “(Investors) are not going to find it to be as successful” as investing in information technology.

However, “I don’t think the Yahoo deal (with Microsoft) is dead,” offered Veverka. “There’s no reason why this goes away.”

On the subject of netbooks, toast of the computer industry and the recent bright spot in an otherwise dull market, panelists found more agreement. “There will be hundreds of millions of them in a year,” if smart phones such as the iPhone and Android-based models are included, said Arrington. But “it’s probably not good news for Microsoft.”

Low-cost netbooks often don’t use Windows or opt for an inexpensive version of the operating system.

Next year could be a tough year for Microsoft, concurred Markoff. Windows revenue may not go up for a long time.

But netbooks are hard to use, Arrington shot back. The screens are small, video is jerky and their keyboards are difficult to navigate.

On a more sublime topic, Markoff suggested it is time for a new discussion of online privacy – not individual but group privacy as companies such as Google mine large amounts of search data for market intelligence.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers