Category → IPOs
There is no other way to say it. This year has been a terrible one for cleantech firms hoping to access the public markets to fund commercialization. Investors seem to be allergic to the very idea of owning stock in a cleantech firm.
Cleantech Chemistry thinks that one might still squeak through before the end of the year – SolarCity just slashed its offering price and number of shares and may now raise $92 million in an upcoming IPO, down from an initial expectation of $151 million. New York Times Dealbook blog has the details. [Update: CC was correct - SolarCity is live and trading up]
SolarCity is not pushing some obscure technology – it buys industry standard solar panels, and leases them to residential homeowners. This business model has become a common way for homeowners to get around the high up-front costs involved in generating their own power.
Should SolarCity decide instead to withdraw its IPO, it will join a long list of cleantech firms that had second thoughts this year including BrightSource Energy (solar), Enerkem, Fulcrum Bioenergy, Coskata, Elevance, Genomatica (all biofuels and biochemicals), and Smith Electric Vehicles. (Hat tip to Cleantech Group for helping with the list).
The good news is that many of these firms are successfully raising money from private investors including venture capitalists, corporate partners, bankers, and the Federal Government (sometimes in combination as when a loan guarantee is offered from DOE or USDA).
Two firms did go public in 2012, though both raised less money than originally hoped. Ceres, a plant biotechnology company focusing on proprietary energy crops, and Enphase, a maker of a new type of solar inverter, clipped their wings a bit but made it out of the gate.
Moving to the New Year, the true effect of a lost year for IPOs may be mainly one of image. True believers will continue to invest in cleantech firms, but for the general investing public, it seems that the bloom is off the rose for pre-commercial companies in the sector. That means fewer stakeholders to help spread the risk of new technologies, and increasing competition to appeal to deep pocketed private investors such as chemical firms and oil and gas giants.
As recently as yesterday, IPO-watchers were keeping an eye on Smith Electric Vehicles, which was expected to go public today. I recently wrote about the company’s plans.
But last night the company pulled its SEC filing. “We received significant interest from potential investors, however, we were unable to complete a transaction at a valuation or size that would be in the best interests of our company and its existing shareholders,” said Bryan Hansel, Smith’s chief executive, in a release. “We have instead elected to pursue private financing opportunities to support the execution of our business plan.”
Though in general, IPO traffic has picked up in the last few weeks, some cleantech and chemical companies have been shy to pull the trigger on public markets. But many have had success instead with follow-on rounds of venture investing or strategic investments.
It can be a better bet than the IPO market, because investor appetite for particular sectors can change quickly. In Smith Electric’s case, some analysts think that slow sales of plug-in hybrid passenger vehicles dampened enthusiams for the electric vehicle market overall.
John Petersen, an analyst who blogs at SeekingAlpha, includes the news about Smith Electric in a larger roundup of information about the battery marketplace. He includes information from a Congressional Budget Office report on the high cost of government subsidies for the electric vehicle market. And he links to a detailed article from the American Physical Society about why lithium ion batteries (at least the versions around now) may not be the right technology for transportation.
There aren’t very many electric vehicle companies in the world. One of the few was founded way back in 1920. Which makes it older than most cleantech firms by at least eight decades. But like many hip, tech-driven, venture-backed start-ups, Smith Electric Vehicles is planning an IPO.
Smith manufactures medium-duty delivery trucks – often called box trucks – used for delivering stuff. The trucks are much bigger than the kinds of passenger cars that come to mind when someone says “electric vehicle” – they need 20 times the battery power of a Nissan Leaf, for example. But they use similar types of batteries as their tiny cousins.
As President Obama noted in his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention, high tech battery manufacturing has been part of the U.S.’s push into advanced manufacturing. He mentioned “thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines, and long-lasting batteries.” I’m assuming by “long-lasting” he’s talking about the big rechargeable li-ion battery packs meant to power electric vehicles.
In large part to make those jobs possible, several battery manufacturers got significant government support from Recovery Act spending. Factories are indeed manufacturing advanced batteries. But as C&EN reported back in February, the electric passenger car market is moving more slowly.
At the time, Smith’s CEO Bryan Hansel was plenty happy about the glut in big batteries. “It’s tremendous for us that supply is coming up—we’re ahead of the demand curve and so we benefit from oversupply in the short term,” he says. “It drives down cost and helps drive demand for our products, and we can then be a bigger customer.”
But with the IPO coming, business and technology risks in the battery industry cast a bit of a shadow on Smith’s operations. The company is shifting to batteries made by A123 Systems, a pure-play technology firm whose own stock chart looks like a downhill ski slope. And it’s not just A123. I also saw in Smith’s SEC filing that a related risk is “the recent bankruptcy filing by Valence Technology, Inc., or Valence, which produces the battery systems for our U.K.-produced vehicles.”
Also in the filing, Smith explains that it is depending on decreasing the costs of its electric drivetrain in order to make a gross profit on its truck sales. As of now, the company loses money on each sale. If the battery makers cannot be profitable, it will be hard for Smith to be profitable.
But that is not to say anything is hopeless. The value proposition to fleet operators to switch from diesel trucks to all-electric ones is promising. The whole supply chain is going to depend on developing and scaling-up the production of cost-effective batteries.
Given the stock turmoil today and yesterday, recent earnings reports from IPO’d cleantech firms may be flying under the radar for most people. And to call them “earnings” reports is a bit generous, too; they are really “losses” reports, but that is to be expected for early-stage technology firms.
Still, its worth noting what analysts are saying about companies like Amyris, Gevo, KiOR, and Solazyme and what the firms reported for the second quarter. While I was mulling a post on just this subject, Jim Lane, over at Biofuels Digest got his post up yesterday covering the first three companies. So I’m giving a hat tip to him and suggesting that you go over there and read his summary.
But if the heat and the stock swings have you too worn out to do that, the short take is that though Amyris and Gevo posted results that were not as strong as expected, analysts following the firms are still enthusiastic about the stocks. KiOR will release it’s second quarter results next Thursday. The important pieces that analysts are looking for is whether the companies have a realistic plan for increasing scale (whether they use their own, or other company’s capital to do so). They also want to get a sense of where revenues will come from in the short term, for example, from product sales or off-take agreements from reliable customers.
Yesterday, Solazyme reported revenues of $7.4 million, which beat the expectations of analyst Laurence Alexander of Jefferies & Co. He had predicted $6.0 million. Most of the revenues came from R&D funding but the company has begun generating sales of its skin care line, called Algenist, made from an algae-derived tailored oil. Alexander says that the Algenist launch will turn out to be larger than expected, meaning more revenues, and thus, less operating losses, into the future. In addition, he notes that the company will deliver 283,000 liters of fuel to the U.S. Navy and the contract calls for up to 550,000 liters. He’s put a Buy rating on the stock.
Cleantech Chemistry recently posted an interview with Cameron Byers, Solazyme’s senior vice president & general manager of fuels and chemicals about how the company plans to make money.
C&EN first wrote about leading algae firm Solazyme in 2009. At that time algae firms were gathering up venture capital funding and perfecting their technologies for growing the green slime. Many were targeting biofuels markets, but some firms had additional markets in mind.
Solazyme’s algae live in large fermentation tanks and eat sugars, which are transformed into algal oil – a type of vegetable oil. The company went public in late May, and raised $227 million from investors.
We checked in with Solazyme to find out more about its business model, and the types of markets it is targeting with its oils. Cameron Byers, senior vice president & general manager of fuels and chemicals gave us a closer look.
C&EN: I first spoke with Solazyme back in early 2009 – it seems like forever ago in algae time. Even then, the firm was targeting specialty chemicals, food, and cosmetics in addition to biofuel. How did that diverse product strategy affect your ability to attract investors and business partners pre-IPO?
Byers: Producing a diverse range of products is not just important, it is what our technology platform was designed to do in-line with our business model. The markets served by conventional oils – petroleum, plants and animal fats – represented an opportunity of over $3.1 trillion in 2010, an attractive potential market for investors. Solazyme’s custom oils can address each of these markets, providing both an environmentally and economically sustainable solution. As an example, Solazyme recently announced a joint development agreement with The Dow Chemical Company to develop of a new class of algal oils tailored for optimized performance and cost in dielectric insulating fluid applications. Dielectric fluids alone represents a 500 million gallon market.
Over at Earth2Tech, blogger Katie Fehrenbacher gives some reasons why the recent excitement powering Internet IPOs might be a boon for cleantech firms. As she points out, the venture capital game is about making money on an entire portfolio of investments, and if individual investors want to pay big for a piece of a coupon business, then VCs can cash out and cover their exposure to slow-to-grow renewables companies.
In examining the numbers, she looks at New Enterprise Associates, which is backing the Groupon IPO - likely to bring in lots of cash – and is also invested in e-car maker Fisker Automotive, fuel-cell maker Bloom Energy and thin-film solar firm Konarka, among others. A Groupon windfall might come close to the size of the diversified fund in its entirety. This could take the pressure off of those long R&D timelines, she suggests.
It’s no accident that so many Cleantech VCs are headquartered in San Francisco, and have portfolios in tech (of the computer and internet variety) as well as cleantech. It’s because most started up during the software and internet booms and then grew to take on green start-ups. But the latter type of investment is much more industrial, slow to develop, and capital intensive. That’s why some IPO watchers (and Fehrenbacher actually made this point last month) have suggested VCs may retreat from cleantech and flow back into the faster, cleaner world of silicon.
It is probably too early in the days of Internet boom part II to tell what, if any, impact we’ll see on the fundraising abilities of cleantech firms. But it’s good to remember that cleantech firms compete not just with each other, but with other industries for investment dollars.
One small rule of thumb to remember is that a successful IPO for a venture capital fund brings in ten times the amount invested. They are supposed to be high-risk, high-reward bets where one good launch makes up for many failures. That is the yardstick that VCs will use to measure the success of a cleantech company IPO.
We don’t have too many rules here in C&EN blogville, but we do try to maintain a chemistry connection. I was worried that would be at risk if I were to post about BrightSource Energy, a mega solar tech firm that has filed for a $250 million IPO.
To generate energy from the sun, BrightSource puts thousands of big mirrors in the desert that track the sun and focus light on a tower with a boiler full of water. The steam generated cranks a turbine to create electricity. It sounds like what a technology firm would think up if someone forgot to invite a chemist or chemical engineer to the concept meeting. [Note that in contrast, other solar thermal companies use nifty heat-transfer fluids like biphenyl and diphenyl oxide, as described by my colleague Alex Tullo.]
But there are at least two innovative uses of chemistry in the BrightSource system, one is basic CRC handbook stuff and one is rather mysterious. To extend the hours during which the water can be turned into steam, BrightSource is working to store some of the sun’s heat in a blend of molten nitrate salts (sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate). To save you the Googling, the melting point of sodium nitrate is 308 C and potassium nitrate is 334 C. For some reason this nice detail is in the firm’s S1 filing but I did not see it on the website.
The more mysterious chemistry is alluded to on the company’s website. As you can imagine, the boiler tower has to withstand some unusual conditions. But worry not, because, “The boiler is designed to withstand the rigors of the daily cycling required in a solar power plant over the course of its lifetime, and is treated with a proprietary solar-absorptive coating to ensure that maximum solar energy is absorbed in the steam. [emphasis mine]. Hmmmmm…. I wonder what is in that coating? Tell me what you think.
This week two algae-to-fuels firms took different pathways to raise new capital while they work out how to commericialize their technologies. The hundreds of start-ups looking to cash in on the little green organisms are likely watching closely.
San Francisco-based Solazyme has raised an impressive $52 million in its fourth round of venture capital funding. Unfortunately for the algae industry, the round does not signify that new investors are flocking to this corner of cleantech – there was only one new investor, Morgan Stanley, participating. Oil company Chevron has stayed on as a strategic investor through its venture capital arm.
I’m at the Lux Research Executive Summit today. You can follow my twitter stream from the conference.
Lux Research Director Michael Holman (who also happens to be a PhD chemist) just gave a presentation discussing the shortcomings of the venture capital model for bringing innovations in physical sciences to market (especially in materials science, energy, and the environment). VC investments worked well for tech companies like Google, which raised a mere $25 million of venture funds before going public.
Another problem is that scientists with lab-discovered innovations do not always pick the right markets and applications for their discoveries. Holman suggests that physical sciences start-ups would be better off partnering in their early stages with the venture and partnership arms of larger corporations.
Corporate partners have a clear understanding about where new technologies are most needed, and they know a great deal about the potential market sizes. Still, most early-stage start-ups are very concerned about being taken over or co-opted by corporations that might not care about the smaller firm’s health and possible future. Holman suggests that agreements that include particular financial incentives can help smooth the way.
One company that Holman says successfully partnered with corporate ventures is Codexis, a biocatalysis firm targeting renewable fuels, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Codexis went public last week and raised $78 million, a strong result in a fragile economy. (Though Codexis originally hoped to raise a cool $100 million). Though the firm did raise some venture money, it partnered early and widely with firms like Chevron, GE, Pfizer, and Shell. Holman says firms like Codexis benefit from the insights of corporate partners and can even speed up their time to market for their products or to exits like IPOs.
Amyris makes genetically engineered bacteria. The designer microbes eat cane sugar and produce various chemical or fuel precursors. The company has already gained some fame for helping to develop a biotech route to artemisinic acid, a precursor for the antimalaria compound artemisinin. Now Amyris says it will be making farnesene, which can be converted to diesel and several commercial products.
Amyris may have been embolded to file its S1 after Codexis’ similar move back in January. Codexis is a biotech firm focused on ezymes for biofuel, pharma, and chemicals production. Both firms are seeking to raise $100 million in capital.