parvus wrote:Well that's disconcerting, to say the least. (Various imprecations come to mind.) That's because VG always claimed that, because of its size, it had access to deal flow.
I think at one time that was the case. And I've seen references to VenGrowth V LP and VenGrowth V Sidecar LP but I've almost never seen any substantive information on those pools. VG was always focused on smaller companies (i.e. later stage as far as LSIFs were concerned but relatively early stage companies relative to the broad class of VC). And earlier stage venture capital hasn't done well in Canada over the past twenty years. What have performed well in Canada are larger deals. So contrary to popular belief - and contrary to what many LSIFs told us - earlier stage hasn't produced higher returns. In fact, it's larger deals in more mature companies that have done well. Mezzanine has also done well in Canada.
A few yearsa go, the CVCA commissioned a report on VC performance drivers
in case you didn't see it.
As for VenGrowth, makes me wonder exactly what they were doing from 1982 (VG's inception) through 1994-95 when the VenGrowth LSIF first launched. Maybe they were institutional at one time.
parvus wrote:GW is also a sponsor. Does it have an institutional business?
Don't think so. GW still has a couple of pools - GW Access Fund
and the now closed GW Pacific Venture Fund
- but I don't get the impression that there is much of an institutional business. I think you could scan the list of venture LPs in use by our big pension funds - i.e. CPPIB, OMERS, OTTP, etc. - to get a sense of who the institutional VC players are in Canada.