Unlike Many Top Innovation Regions, Silicon Valley’s Early Stage Investment is Up Since the End of 2015

By John Melville and Janine Kaiser

Boston, New York City, Seattle, Southern California—all experienced drops in early-stage investment (Angel, Seed, Seed VC, and Series A) in the first half of 2016.  Austin’s numbers rose modestly, but Silicon Valley’s rose faster.  And, the Valley’s overall level of early-stage investment remains well above all these comparison regions.

Q2 2016 did produce a quarterly drop in early-stage investment across all these innovation regions, including Silicon Valley, so we will have to see if this continues or reverses in the coming quarters, if it is a general trend or applicable to some regions and not others.

Regardless, even with this Q/Q dip, early stage investment into Silicon Valley companies remained above the historical average for the region.

Early State Investment


Initial Public Offerings is a measure on which Silicon Valley is not doing as well compared to some innovation regions.  The region’s number of IPOs and their total valuation dipped below that of New York City and Boston during the first half of 2016.

How significant is this trend?  The reality is that while valuations in each of these regions rose in the second quarter, they all remain below—or well below—their peaks of the last three years.  In fact, Renaissance Capital has reported that the U.S. IPO market in the first quarter of 2016 was its weakest since the 2008-2009 recession.

IPO Valuations


John Melville and Janine Kaiser are Co-CEO and Senior Consultant, respectively, at Collaborative Economics, a Silicon Valley-based consulting and research firm.

Halftime Report: Investment in Silicon Valley Has Rebounded From 2015’s Low

Halftime Report:  Investment in Silicon Valley Has Rebounded From 2015’s Low

By John Melville and Janine Kaiser

 Mid-year Venture Capital Levels Rise After 2015 Dropoff

After rising in the first half of 2015, venture capital investment dropped substantially over the remainder of the year in Silicon Valley.  However, this trend did not continue in the first half of 2016, as venture investments into Silicon Valley-based firms (including San Francisco) ended higher than their Q4 2015 level.

VC Funding


Tempering this news is the fact that the rebound was modest; Silicon Valley’s VC levels remained below last year’s high, and according to CB Insights data, Q2 2016 seems to have been lower than the Q1 2016 investment.  On this last point, not all the second quarter numbers have been recorded, as several late-stage investments did not publically disclose valuations, including Scoot Networks, August Home, Lob.com, Qnovo and Droom Technology.

So, we will know in the coming months if there really was a Q2 dip, whether it was the start of a downward trend or just a one-quarter hiccup in what otherwise is a rebound from 2015’s low point.  What we do know is that VC investment is currently well below the level recorded at this time last year—and that it would take substantial gains in the second half of 2016 to match 2015’s annual total.

Silicon Valley Well Ahead of and Not Losing Ground to Top Innovation Regions

At the same time, Silicon Valley performed better than most comparison regions.  Boston and New York City experienced declines in VC investment in the first half of 2016, while Austin and Seattle posted only small gains.  Southern California saw a sharp increase in venture investment in the second quarter of 2016, driven in part by a $200M investment in San Diego-based Human Longevity, the second largest VC investment in California in Q2 2016.  But let’s be clear:  Silicon Valley remains well ahead of these regions in overall VC investment.

Venture Capital Fundraising

VC Fundraising Getting Stronger Nationally

What does the VC pipeline look like?  According to the National Venture Capital Association, in Q1 2016 fundraising among venture capital firms in the U.S. was the highest in a decade, at $14B.  Fundraising in the first half of 2016 was 24 percent higher than the first half of 2015.

So, what does this halftime report tell you?  Share with us what you think is happening in the Valley, and what is on the horizon.


John Melville and Janine Kaiser are Co-CEO and Senior Consultant, respectively, and Collaborative Economics.


Silicon Valley Competitiveness: A Mid-Year Policy Report

Now at the halfway point of 2016, there is sand in the gears of Washington, D.C. but we’ve seen some policy developments that bode well for Silicon Valley at the state and local level.

Here are some highlights – and some lowlights – on immigration reform, education and transportation:

Immigration:  The use of immigration as a galvanizing force in the Presidential campaign has reduced the already painfully small chances that Congress will find the bipartisan consensus needed to advance immigration reform in the short or medium term.   Meanwhile, the immigration status quo continues to hobble the innovation economy in this country.

Education:  It’s been a good month for early childhood education in California. The new state budget includes an additional $7.8 million to provide access to preschool for nearly 3,000 eligible children in the 2016-2017 year. Over the next four years, funding will increase to $100 million to serve an additional 8,877 children in full-day state preschool slots. In addition, efforts to do away with guaranteed transitional kindergarten statewide were turned aside.  That said, we’re still not back to pre-2008 funding levels, and the need for high-quality early education remains great.

Transportation: Santa Clara, San Francisco and Santa Cruz Counties are revving up to consider transportation relief measures on the November ballot. The Santa Clara County measure is the most ambitious of these: It would complete the extension of BART to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara as well as providing funds for Caltrain electrification, speeding up expressways and filling many, many potholes.

Coming soon, 2016 status reports on the housing and tax front….

Good questions about the lasting impact of Silicon Valley’s prosperity

In today’s San Jose Mercury News, long-time Silicon Valley reporter and columnist Michelle Quinn asks this question: What if this tech boom is, gulp, not a bubble after all, but a major, sustained period of growth?

It is a question surfacing more and more in Silicon Valley. Reverberations from the “prosperity bomb,” as Quinn calls it, undoubtedly will be long lasting. Most Silicon Valley veterans do not believe the area is in a “bubble,” but they do believe there will be an economic slow down. That won’t help the housing / jobs imbalance, however. Will all of Silicon Valley’s individual government parts be able to come together in a more regional way? Time will tell. In the meantime, here’s a part of Quinn’s column and a link to the full column if you’d like to read more.

-Steve Wright

Quinn: The housing crisis ahead of us

What if this tech boom is, gulp, not a bubble after all, but a major, sustained period of growth?

What if rather than tech corridors popping up all over the country, the need for a company to be here, of all places, only intensifies?

Where are the extra people going to live? Where are those 2 million additional people expected to flood the region over the next generation going to sleep?

These are some of the questions I’ve pondered as Apple gobbles up land in North San Jose, LinkedIn and Google tussle over swaths of real estate in Mountain View, Facebook’s workforce of 9,000 is predicted to grow as much as 20 percent annually and Toyota announced it is opening a $1 billion new innovation hub.

Global demand for tech products and services means a prosperity bomb is going off in the Bay Area that will reshape the region for decades to come.

In many ways, the impact is already being felt. Regional planners, in 2010, did their best, but they underestimated the five-year employment growth here by a whopping 90,000 jobs.

People grouse about the highway traffic, the crowded roads and inadequate public transportation. But that’s just a symptom of our current situation with jobs in one place and housing in another, says Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

“Transportation is a servant, not the master,” he said. “There’s a massive imbalance; the transportation has to work that much harder to serve the pattern we’ve built.”

Feeling crowded now? Expect to feel more so. Looking ahead, one high-growth projection is that by 2040, jobs will grow 32 percent — an extra 1.2 million jobs — on top of the 3.7 million already here in the nine-county Bay Area, according to a new report out by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute.

The Bay Area population is projected to rise 30 percent to 9.4 milion by 2040, up from 7.2 million in 2010, according to updated projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments. This is a tsunami of people that the region, with its geographic constraints, will somehow have to absorb. Try 800,000 more housing units.

Of course, we need a strong regional response, as uncomfortable as that may be for those who eschew change. Cities that enjoy their roles as Bay Area job centers need to step up and allow housing projects. Residents in those cities need to vote in officials who support growth. Companies need to invest in offices that put jobs closer to where people live or near public transit. And homeowners like me who bought a while ago need to accept that things have changed and be open to accepting more neighbors and using public transportation to get around. Driving over the Bay Bridge in 20 minutes is not a birthright.

Read more here.



IPOs are down: What does this mean for Silicon Valley?

By Doug Henton, Collaborative Economics

Initial public offerings (IPOs) generate returns for investors that fuel the growth of Silicon Valley’s next generation of startup companies. The third quarter update of the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project (svcip.com) shows that IPO valuations are down, in Silicon Valley, the nation and the world. This is a new development, with uncertain ramifications for the region’s next generation of startup businesses and economic growth.

Nationally, Renaissance Capital, a leading source for research on pre-IPO and IPO investment, reported a 43 percent annual decline in U.S. IPOs in Q3 2015 (down to 34 IPOs), in response to global market conditions and concerns about the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank raising interest rates.  In addition, a significant number of IPOs were delayed or withdrawn.  According to Renaissance Capital’s U.S. IPO Markets Q3 2015 Quarterly Review, average IPO returns were negative (-4 percent) for the first time since 2011, and more than half of new IPOs ended the quarter below their offer price. Global IPOs mirrored this trend; compared to Q3 2014, quarterly proceeds in Q3 2015 were down 63 percent (excluding Alibaba’s $21.8 billion IPO from Q3 2014 figures). In Q3 2015, six Silicon Valley-based companies went public, compared to 11 in the prior quarter.

Growth in IPO valuations throughout 2015 have also eased from 2014. According to Reuters, five of the 12 U.S.-based tech companies that went public this year (or 42 percent), priced their shares at a valuation below or nearly the same as their private market value, compared to 24 percent that went public in 2014. This trend suggests that companies are less optimistic about leveraging IPOs as a means of raising capital and driving significant increases in valuation.

This fear appears to be justified. According to Pitchbook, a private equity and venture capital research firm, in 2014 the median increase in value between private market valuations and companies’ post-IPO valuations was 61 percent (among the companies that saw their valuation grow through an IPO). In 2015 through Q3, companies that went public have only gained a median of 32 percent. The smaller valuation gains are affecting companies’ decisions about going public, with many delaying or withdrawing their public offering plans.

What are the implications for Silicon Valley? The returns generated by the IPOs help to fuel early stage investment in future startups. At the same time, the success of startups that go public has created significant job growth in our region. The question is whether the slump in Q3 2015 is a temporary development due to short term market changes, or is this a longer term trend that may affect the future growth of the Valley?

The Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project was created by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation to track trends and identify potential early warning signs for the health of Silicon Valley’s innovation ecosystem and regional competitiveness. Continued tracking of IPO activity will help us keep a finger on the pulse of the innovation economy as we move into 2016.

Can We Learn Anything from Silicon Valley?

(Note: This article first appeared in “Innovation: America’s Journal of Technology Commercialization http://www.innovation-america.org/can-we-learn-anything-silicon-valley)

With the American economy still limping along seven years after the Great Recession, seemingly unable to make a complete comeback, it’s got to be hard for the rest of the country not to look at the current roaring boom in Silicon Valley…and dream of getting a little piece of that action. In fact, it’s even crazier here in the Valley than you might imagine.  This isn’t the everyone-is-now-rich bubble of dot.com era fifteen years ago.  It’s more like some people are getting crazy rich and that money is slopping over onto the rest of the community.  Thus, a lot of folks are still driving the same old car and living in the same old house, but they are sharing the freeways with Maseratis, S-Class Mercedes and endless Teslas.

Meanwhile, that same old house has now tripled in value since 2010.  In my neighborhood, filled with nice three bedroom/two bath ranch houses built in the late 1950s (and typically upgraded a couple of times), we were astonished when the original $12,000 price crossed $500,000.  That was in 2005.  Then, despite the Crash, they crossed $1 million in 2012.  Last week, the first house in the neighborhood was sold for $2 million.  We all know it’s crazy, but, as we tell each other when we meet walking our dogs, why not cash out and get a condo just outside the Valley, or even Oregon or Arizona, and enjoy a comfortable early retirement?

My house is the oldest in Silicon Valley (c.1852) on the biggest lot in Sunnyvale.  We’ve owned it for twenty years and my guess is that its market value is approaching 10X what we paid for it.  A few weeks ago a Hong Kong couple knocked on the door to inquire if we’d like to sell.  Standing there I realized that I could throw out any insane number in the high seven figures and they wouldn’t blink.  Indeed, they might just go for it.  And then what?

Why this madness?  And why now?

The answer is, I think, that instead of some new Silicon Valley rising elsewhere in the country, or in the world, those forces are instead just building a new Valley on top of the old one.  Or, more precisely,  Old New Valley, based in San Francisco, is building New New Valley in the South Bay on top of the Old Old original Silicon Valley of HP, Intel, Cisco, etc.  From where I live I can see that transformation everywhere around me, from the cranes over the giant new Apple headquarters in Cupertino, to Google’s progressive takeover of Moffett Naval Air Station in Mountain View, to LinkedIn’s takeover of downtown Sunnyvale.  The new SF 49ers stadium.  The giant new startups like Tesla and Theranos taking over old HP real estate in Palo Alto.

Recent studies bear out this revitalization.  One extensive report, created by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group last year, found that by almost every metric, after a half-century Silicon Valley was not still only holding its own against other regional tech contenders but was accelerating away.  In fact, in most of these metrics, Silicon Valley-San Francisco’s only real competition was Silicon Valley-San Jose.   And if the recent building is any indication, that combination will continue to stay on top, merely reversing their rankings as hardware once again begins to dominate software.

Meanwhile all of this growth and success is occurring in spite of growing regulation, a statewide drought, miserable traffic, a stratospheric cost of living and, of course, utterly insane real estate prices.  Usually, any one of these problems will bring down a community or at least open the door to other competing regional and national business centers.  Why not here?

It’s a question that has been asked at least since I was a cub reporter at the San Jose Mercury News in 1979.  Even then it was assumed that the Valley couldn’t go on forever.  That at least one of those new tech enclaves springing up around the nation— Silicon Mesa, Silicon Forest, Silicon Alley, etc.—would eventually rise up and take away the crown as the world’s Tech Capital.  And indeed, some of those centers, notably in New York City, Los Angeles and Austin, continue to thrive and grow.  But no one, not even in such faraway tech centers as Bangalore, Dublin and Tel Aviv, still believes that they are going to supplant the Valley.

Why is this so?  Why did those other communities, blessed as they are with talent, money, infrastructure and civic commitment, end up also-rans?  What is it about the Silicon Valley model, which seems easy to replicate, that turns out to be so elusive?  What’s in the Valley’s secret sauce that makes it so successful and enduring?

After a half-century living here and forty years working in and reporting on the Valley, I think I have some answers but they probably aren’t the ones those other tech communities want to hear.  Here they are:
History. Silicon Valley was founded at a unique moment in history: the end of World War II, the return of GIs wanting to pursue technological fields, the invention of the transistor and the rise of digital computers, the Cold War and the Space Race.  All buoyed the young community with talent and money.

Leadership. Do the times make the man (or woman) or vice versa?  Either way, from David Packard to Bob Noyce to Steve Jobs, the early Valley was led by some extraordinary, larger-than-life figures who shaped the place, drove its greatest companies, spoke for it inside the Beltway and on a global stage, and defended the Valley from both political and competitive threats.

Money. Because it was the first entrepreneurial community, Silicon Valley also pioneered modern venture capital.  It started here, and because investing in startups is a communal activity, it has remained here.  Silicon Valley venture capital not only leads the world, it utterly dominates it.  And there’s a big difference between driving to Sand Hill Road to pitch your company, and flying in from Omaha.  And VCs like to be close to their portfolio companies to keep an eye on them.
Climate. It’s still true, and still underrated:  the San Francisco Bay Area has some of the best weather on the planet.  Everyone in the rest of the country talks about how much they love the “four seasons” and yet, funny how many visitors the Valley gets every January.

Culture. We’ve learned that a tech culture is not something that can be bolted on to an existing community—look at the troubles even San Francisco, a deep 150-year-old culture, is having between the hot tech company employees and long-time residents.  That didn’t happen in the original Silicon Valley because there was basically no here, here:  just endless orchards and cheap land with a handful of world-class universities nearby.  Where can that be done today?  The Valley grew its own culture, which is why it is so deeply embedded.  So deep, in fact, that most of the rest of the world doesn’t really understand it.  They work at entrepreneurship; we live it.  We breathe it, it is the talk of every conversation in every coffee joint and movie theater.  We don’t feel complete if we haven’t been part of at least one startup.  Our heroes, from Jobs to Zuckerberg, would be considered dysfunctional monsters anywhere else.  And this culture has been growing, marinating and evolving now for fifty years.  It can’t be planted and cultivated overnight.

So where does that leave the rest of the tech world that’s not Silicon Valley?  A good start would be to stop trying to be the next Silicon Anything.  The Valley has won; move on.  Most of all, find an exciting new paradigm.  Stop trying to convince Valley companies to move to your community, or worse, set up sales offices and manufacturing divisions.  The lesson of Portland, Oregon, over the last thirty years is that if your tech community is mostly small parts of big Valley companies, no matter how famous, then you are economically expendable. You’ll always be first for layoffs, first into downturns and last out.

In other words, there is no short-term solution.  You can’t become a great tech community by buying, enticing or stealing existing companies.  You can only do so by growing your own entrepreneurs in the hopes that over the upcoming decades one or two or ten of them will create great, world-beating corporations.

And how do you grow these entrepreneurs?  It takes a great university or two nearby to identify and train them.  It takes homegrown venture and angel money. Who are your local tycoons willing to seed these companies or assemble an investment fund?    It takes cheap facilities and a top-notch technology infrastructure (broadband, etc.)  And most of all, it takes a cultural commitment —an indigenous culture, not a borrowed one—that is committed to risk, and accepting of “good” failures.  That’s a whole lot tougher than it sounds, but you can make it easier by bundling this attitude with the uniquely appealing attributes of your region: the boho cowboy culture of Austin, the Big Apple life of Manhattan’s Flatiron District, the high culture world of Oxford.

Finally, you need patience.  The tech world may move at the pace of Moore’s Law, but human society doesn’t.  It will take at least one (human) generation to the see the results of your efforts, and to turn the germ of a unique tech community into a thriving one.

That’s a long time, at least five (tech) generations.  So you’d better start now.

Michael S. Malone, a veteran Silicon Valley observer, writes a column for Innovation.

Less than 25 percent of individual workers and only 40 percent of households in Silicon Valley can afford average-priced housing

By Janine Kaiser and Doug Henton, Collaborative Economics

Housing costs in Silicon Valley remain among the highest in the United States, according to new data compiled for the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project, and represent a critical competitiveness and equity concern for the region. Not only does housing affordability affect the ability of workers to live within the region, it also impacts companies’ ability to attract top talent, and the economy’s ability to attain its full potential.(1) Recent research also suggests that housing affordability has long-term consequences because owning a home is a critical factor in intergenerational wealth and income disparity.(2)

The median home value in the San Jose Metro Area is nearly $925,000, the highest median value in the United States.(3) Purchasing a home of this value requires a minimum salary of at least $133,000 per year.(4) Rental market prices have also increased rapidly, and in May 2015, average monthly rent in San Jose was $2,917 for a two bedroom apartment.(5) To afford this rent level, residents would need to make $116,680 annually.(6)

Yet in the most recent data available, median income for individual workers in the San Jose Metro Area was $57,400 in 2014,(7) and among households, $91,500 in 2013.(8) To rent an average two-bedroom apartment in Silicon Valley, an individual worker would need to earn more than the 75th income percentile in the region ($105,000), and households would need to earn more than the 60th income percentile ($114,300). The takeaway is that less than 25 percent of individual workers and only 40 percent of households in San Jose, at the center of Silicon Valley, are able to afford to rent average-priced homes in the region. Purchasing a home is equally challenging for residents in the region. Only 44 percent of Santa Clara County’s households could afford to purchase an “entry level” home in the first quarter of 2015, and an even smaller share of households could afford entry level homes in San Mateo and San Francisco counties, 29 percent and 27 percent, respectively.(9)

Even high-technology STEM workers are feeling the pinch. The median salary for workers in Computer and Mathematical occupations, for example, was $121,000 in 2014. While these workers can afford to rent in the region, less than half of the workforce would be able to buy an average home.

Compounding the affordability challenge for residents is the rate of change; income levels in Silicon Valley (proxied by the San Jose Metro Area) have not kept pace with the increase in housing prices. Between the recent housing market bottom in the region in January 2012, and May 2015, median home sale prices per square foot rose 67 percent.(10) Median rental market prices increased 47 percent over the same period. Median income, on the other hand, rose 4 percent between 2012 and 2014.

Leaders from the private, public, and community-based sectors are rallying to improve housing affordability and access in Silicon Valley. In January 2015, leaders identified the following housing priorities for action in the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project:

  • Mobilize business voices in support of additional housing development in the region. Businesses can play a key role in testifying about the importance of additional housing development during the local government review processes for new construction.
  • Advocate for a permanent funding source for affordable housing at the state level.
  • Invest in transportation infrastructure and housing across cities within the region to promote livable cities, aligning with regional planning efforts such as Plan Bay Area developed by MTC in 2013 as required by SB375.

Progress is occurring on all of these fronts. Longtime Silicon Valley watchers know that housing and housing affordability are cyclical in Silicon Valley, just like the innovation economy. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has a long record of tackling the issue. Its work on housing includes:

  • Raised $20 million to form the Housing Trust of Silicon Valley in 1998 which has helped more than 11,750 people through its three programs (first-time homebuyer, homelessness prevention and rental housing).
  • More than 20 years ago, helped form the Housing Action Coalition of Santa Clara County to advocate for housing developments and policies across the region. Direct support for 237 projects totaling approximately 67,000 homes.
  • In 2014, led a coalition to adopt a $17 sq/ft housing impact fee in the City of San Jose which will result in $30 million annually for affordable housing.

Another new and important voice complementing the Leadership Group’s efforts on housing policy is the newly launched SV@Home. SV@Home advocates for “policies, programs, land use decisions, and funding sources to increase housing for all members of the Silicon Valley community,” with support from community-based organizations, public leaders, developers and technology companies.(11)

Grassroots efforts, such Palo Alto Forward, are underway and are mobilizing citizens to help craft innovative solutions to the housing challenge.(12)

While progress is being made, the challenge is grave, with both short and long term impacts.


SVCIP was developed jointly by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Silicon Valley Community Foundation to proactively benchmark 23 innovation economy indicators and develop overarching public policy strategies at local, state and federal levels to enhance and reinforce the Valley’s competitive advantages in innovation. Collaborative Economics has conducted the data research and analysis for this project. Follow SVCIP for progress and data updates by subscribing here.

1) Taylor, Mac.  California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences.  Legislative Analyst’s Office. Mar. 17, 2015

2) Rognlie, Matthew, “Deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.  March 17, 2015. http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/land-prices-evolution-capitals-share

3) Bloomberg Millenial Housing Affordability Index. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-millennial-affordability/table.html

4) Ibid

5) Rent Jungle. https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-jose-rent-trends/

6) Gross annual income estimate calculated based on rent as 40% of income, and a 25% tax bracket.

7) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupation Employment Statistics, May 2014.

8) U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2013.

9) California Association of Realtors, http://www.car.org/marketdata/data/ftbhai/. “Entry level” home refer 85% of median sale price in the region.

10) Zillow, Median Home Sale Prices per Square Foot

11) http://siliconvalleyathome.org/about-us/

12) http://www.paloaltoforward.com/

Ideas for fixing the big pothole that is California’s roads

One of the challenges for an innovation region with signifcant job growth is the impact on commutes, roads and public transit. Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino, who also is a member of the California Transportation Commission, discusses below the problem and potential funding solutions the state is reviewing now to fix roads and highways. You can find out about the public meetings, give input or volunteer to help by going to www.dot.ca.gov/road_charge/.

This first appeared as an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle on July 6, 2015.
By Carl Guardino
July 6, 2015
Depressed. Distressed. Determined.
When it comes to solutions to California’s crumbling highway, street and road conditions, it’s easy to feel discouraged about any possible path forward. Fortunately, Gov. Jerry Brown has challenged the Legislature to seek bipartisan solutions to fill the deep hole — make that a big pothole — in what passes for roads and highways in the Golden State.
Special-session public hearings started Thursday, but the real fireworks will start this week when the Legislature returns after the long holiday weekend. How tough is the challenge? Get ready to be depressed:
• We have a $59 billion hole just in deferred maintenance in our state highway system.
• California road conditions rank 45th of 50 states, according to the state Transportation Commission.
• California’s 10-year unfunded transportation needs exceed $296 billion.
When we consider solutions using traditional approaches, we move from being depressed to distressed:
• The gas tax, California’s transportation funding source since 1923, now has the lowest purchasing power, when adjusted for inflation, in history.
• With more Californians driving fuel-efficient cars, we have even fewer gas tax funds to fix our roads.
Fortunately, the governor and the Legislature seem determined to find commonsense solutions to solve these challenges. In the near term, these solutions could include:
• Restoring California’s truck-weight fee to its intended purpose — funding repairs on our highway system caused by heavy-duty trucks. The $1 billion annually raised from these fees is diverted to the general fund. Assembly Democrat Luis Alejo of Salinas and Assembly Republican Eric Linder of Corona (Riverside County) have legislation to ensure the full $1 billion is used as intended.
• State Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, has introduced SB16, which would fund roughly $40 billion in state highway and local road improvements over the next decade.
•• Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, has introduced AB1265, which would extend the ability of Caltrans to enter into public-private partnerships, saving time and money on transportation improvements.
• The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is poised to lead or support countywide transportation measures in 2016 in at least three counties: Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Francisco. The leadership group co-led the first “self-help” county campaign in 1984, with voters approving a half-cent sales tax in Santa Clara County for specific transportation improvements. The approach has been emulated by 20 counties, and those measures fund 50 cents of every $1 invested in transportation statewide.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo jokes that we could repurpose potholes as “traffic calming devices,” but we all know that crumbling streets are no laughing matter. California has a golden opportunity to turn the corner on the quality of our highways, streets and roads with more adequate, sustainable funding.
The state’s Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee, a 15-member group established by the state Transportation Commission and California State Transportation Agency, is soliciting feedback. You can find out about the public meetings, give input or volunteer to help by going to www.dot.ca.gov/road_charge/.
Carl Guardino is president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. He also is a member of the California Transportation Commission.

For Foreign-Born Entrepreneurs, Silicon Valley Is the American Dream

This is a good article that uses data from the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project to explain the impact of foreign-born entrepreneurs to the innovation economy and Silicon Valley. It also looks at the ecosystem, including from a women’s perspective – why they come here. The article was posted on the website 7X7 – A San Francisco Bay Area’s online resource for the best local food, drink, culture, arts, style, outdoor adventures, tech, travel and more. – Steve Wright swright@svlg.org

By Joseph Jaafari on June 04, 2015 3:00 PM

In the maze of offices at Rackspace on Folsom Street, Shahin Shadfar points to a small row of disheveled chairs and overturned computer mice lined up against a grey wall of cubicle space: This is where his team sits. Shadfar walks into a lounge to talk about an app called Zurf, his latest venture, which comes on the heels of several successes in other tech projects across the nation. But while Shadfar has begun to build a name for himself in San Francisco, Houston, and Boston, he’s not from the United States. In fact, he is a member of a vibrant Persian entrepreneurial community, which, like many other immigrant communities, is growing in Silicon Valley.

Techies have moved into Silicon Valley from around the globe in droves, making tech one of the most internationally diverse industries around. Foreign-born workers occupy over half of the Valley’s STEM jobs, and foreign talent, according to the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project (SVCIP), runs about 49 percent of all tech startups.

Trisha Roy is another one of these workers—an Indian born woman who is now living the Silicon Valley dream. Having grown up with zero exposure to technology to build a product, she considers herself lucky.

“Technology outsourcing from big companies [to Indian engineers] wasn’t really translating into women really taking on technology,” she says, adding that she never gave any thought to a job in tech because outside of things like phones and computers, there weren’t many high-level technologies readily available to her back home.

“Even if you don’t have an engineering background, being [in the U.S.] and talking to people here, technology touches your life. That wasn’t the case in India,” she says. “Technology only touched the lives of engineers.”

After moving to the states to get an MBA from the University of Arizona, Roy wanted to work in the Bay Area. The best paying jobs were in tech, so she taught herself the basics of coding to be competitive and was successul in landing a job at eBay, working her way up to becoming a senior product manager. Today, she owns Barn & Willow, a company that leverages technology to create custom home decor.

Roy’s drive to succeed is characteristic of many foreign intellectuals who’ve come to work here, and now companies are capitalizing on it by bringing new talent stateside.

PuenteLabs, a SF-based startup that works with Latin American companies seeking to expand into Silicon Valley, says the initial challenges for immigrant entrepreneurs are obvious ones—think cultural and language barriers.

“If you look at Chileans as a group, they are pretty humble,” says Mike Hennessey, executive director for PuenteLabs. “They don’t want to brag about their ambitions, so I’ve seen situations where Chileans come here to raise money and they don’t mention that some of their investors are the top people in the Valley. I think Silicon Valley is a meritocracy to a degree, so if you can get the meetings, and your ideas are valid, where you’re from is irrelevant. But, to the aspect of being able to communicate that clearly, I think language does play a big part.”

There are bureaucratic issues, too: Strict and heavily criticized immigration policies in the U.S. often prevent foreign-born tech workers from continuing to work here, according to another report published by the SVCIP: “While the region’s universities, companies, and startup culture are magnets for foreign talent, each year thousands of tech workers and other professionals return home because of immigration restrictions and delays,” it says.

Roy experienced this firsthand: When many tech companies wouldn’t take the chance to sponsor her visa, she faced the prospect of deportation had she not found a job. But it’s a risk she would gladly take again for the chance to build her own company in Silicon Valley.

California must invest now in education and infrastructure

By Lenny Mendonca and Doug Henton

(This article first appeared on May 14 in the San Francisco Chronicle.)

This spring, the governor and the Legislature have an opportunity to innovate a different future. Rather than building a new spending base that cannot be sustained, the state needs to invest its unexpected revenue like venture capital — it needs to invest in education and infrastructure projects that can catalyze job creation and reduce poverty. Now is the time to invest in our economic future and ensure the innovation that got us here continues through the next downturn.

To build the sturdy foundation that California requires for a lasting prosperity, we must think about where California needs to invest and how to pay for it. California’s long-term prosperity depends on investments in human capital and infrastructure, as California Forward wrote in its recent “Financing the Future” report.

The governor’s revised state budget, presented Thursday in Sacramento, increases spending for public schools, higher education and tax relief for the working poor. The governor also agreed to work with the Legislature on infrastructure investments. It may slow our state’s economic recovery unless we address deep structural issues, including:

  • Housing affordability — California is short 750,000 housing units, and rent is too high.
  • Infrastructure — An estimated $853 billion investment is needed in transportation, water and K-12 school facilities in the next decade.
  • Research and development spending — As a share of the federal government’s budget, this year’s outlays for R&D will be the lowest since 1968. The Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project revealed the startling reality of slower growth in R&D funding in Silicon Valley compared with other regions. In 2013, Silicon Valley universities’ R&D levels actually fell below those of 2004 on an inflation-adjusted basis.

How do we address these concerns? We need:

Leadership by the public and private sectors, including elected officials, university presidents and industry representatives, to commit to our long-term economic future.

Sustained public investment, which will help attract private investment, as well as support from foundations and the federal government.

Sustained support for educational institutions, including research facilities, which will produce a trained workforce and a flow of ideas for commercial development.

Public-private partnerships to develop the necessary workforce, improve and expand infrastructure, and support bringing the resulting products to the market.

The work is under way. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and increased career technical funding are two “wins” the California Economic Summit already has achieved since it began its work four years ago. The Community College Chancellor’s Office has been traveling around the state to explore how the state’s vast community college system can better develop and import programs to train the 1 million middle-skills workers California needs. The California Council of Science and Technology plans to launch a California Innovation Initiative driven by public and private leaders that will promote investments in our future.

And more can be done.

Let’s let the governor and the Legislature know we can’t miss this opportunity to invest in our future.

Lenny Mendonca is co-chair of California Forward and chair emeritus of the McKinsey Global Institute. Doug Henton is chairman and CEO of Collaborative Economics, a San Mateo-based economic consultancy that worked on the Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.