Perspectives on Private Investment
in Innovative Remediation
Technology Companies
December, 1999
-------
I* LI! ill!!!":
" .ft Ill: Ill 'I.
.r ;:J .
-.'."I"1! ;•,'!:• illilf '•
•'. "ililull ,
:;: ;, i:,;
.:, I1 iii
, i;i iii '
: : iSf1;
l I I"-
n11, , ' i, n 111'"l
, ', null i i* <'l"
-------
Perspectives on Private Investment
in Innovative Remediation
Technology Companies
Prepared by the:
Environmental Capital Network
Center for Environmental Policy, Economics & Science
416 Longshore Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-996-8387
With Support from the
Technology Innovation Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
under Assistance Agreement No. X-827254-01-0
December, 1999
-------
-------
PERSPECTIVES ON PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN INNOVATIVE
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
I. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to develop a framework for the Environmental Capital Network
(ECN) and for policy makers to significantly accelerate the successful commercialization of
innovative clean-up, treatment and site characterization remediation technologies. More
specifically, ECN has attempted to identify and understand the steps that can be taken to increase
the quantity and speed of private equity investments in early stage companies developing and
commercializing innovative remediation technologies.
The basic premise of this report is that the ability of small companies to successfully develop and
commercialize innovative remediation technologies, is thwarted, to a large degree, by a severe
lack of private equity capital. A small company's capital needs almost always substantially
increase as the company moves a technology from research through demonstration, to first
commercial success, and finally to full commercialization and profitability. There is, however, a
dearth of needed seed and startup private capital available to remediation technology companies
to carry them through these early stages of development, presenting the small company with a
break-down in the supply of capital required to survive and prosper.
This early stage period in a company's development cycle has been termed the "Valley of Death".
The valley of death is the gap that exists between the time when a company no longer has any
personal resources to draw from to support their business and the point where professional
sources of capital become a realistic option. The lack of capital within this gap presents a real
challenge for companies in virtually every industry.
Most innovative technology companies attempt to raise startup capital from individual,
professional and corporate investors. Interestingly, most have an extremely difficult time
accessing these early stage funds. The startup stage is characterized as a high risk period in a
company's development cycle. Most professional investors prefer to invest in a company's later
(and hence lower risk) stage of development.
The problem of the "valley" is particularly daunting for remediation technology companies
(RTCs), because of the near total absence of individual, professional and corporate investors
willing to invest in companies commercializing technologies in the remediation marketplace.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Pagel
-------
The absence of willing investors greatly diminishes the opportunities for remediation companies
to raise the capital they need to commercialize their innovative remediation technologies.
The trends within the capital marketplace are not encouraging. In 1993, five percent of US
venture capital firms actively invested in the "environmental" field, at that time a sector
consisting largely of remediation related companies'. Today, ECN estimates that fewer than 2%
of venture capital firms actively consider RTCs2. ECN's review of the PricewaterhouseCoopers'
MoneyTree Reports, which documents many of the venture capital investments made in 1998,
yielded slightly more than $500,000 in venture capital investment in RTCs. While this statistic
undoubtedly understates the actual level of investment activity, because it does not include
individual investments, corporate investments, and many small venture capital firms, it is
certainly indicative of an extremely low level of private investment today in RTCs.
A key premise of this research, therefore, is the critical need to understand more clearly what can
be done by ECN and others to enhance the -willingness of private investors to place capital in
early stage remediation technology companies. We believe that the expansiveness of the valley
of death can most effectively be made smaller by increasing the number of investors active in the
remediation marketplace.
1 "Bridging The Valley of Death: Financing Technology for a Sustainable." U.S. Small Business
Administration. December 1994.
2 ECN knows of approximately 10 venture capital firms that would consider seriously investing in RTCs.
More than 800 venture capital firms are listed in the Pratt's Guide to Venture Capital.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative Page 2
Remediation Technology Companies ~~ ~—
-------
II. Research Methodology
This report uses four market classifications. ECN considers the "remediation market" to be a
market within the much broader "environmental industry." The remediation market itself is
divided into several market "sectors," including the clean-up, treatment, and characterization
sectors. These market sectors are divided into multiple market "segments", each defined by a
different cluster of customer types. For purposes of this report, a "remediation technology
company" is defined as a firm that is developing and/or commercializing a technology that will
be used by customers in one or more remediation market segments.
The industry, market, market sectors and market segments considered in this report are listed
below.
Table 1. Classifications of the Environmental Industry and Remediation Market
Industry
Market
Sectors Segments
Environmental
Remediation
Clean-up
Military
National Labs
Superfund
Non Superfund State/Local
Corporate Property
Brownfield Projects
Spills, Emergency Response
Treatment Market
On site Treatment by Industry
Off site Treatment, Storage, & Disposal
Waste Handling, Hauling
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation
Site Monitoring
Analytical/Lab Services
On site Industrial Monitoring
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
PaseS
Remediation Technology Companies
-------
For our research ECN sought input directly from individual, professional and corporate investors
who have invested or have seriously considered investing in RTCs. ECN utilized information
from two complementary sources: (1) A survey of qualified investment professionals who are
familiar with the remediation market, who have made investments in RTCs, and who serve as
"gatekeepers" for other investors, and (2) Internal ECN historical information about how
investors evaluated specific RTCs within the ECN network.
ECN prepared and distributed a survey entitled "Investor Interest in Hazardous Waste
Remediation Companies" to individual, professional and corporate investors. The survey was
designed to enable ECN to better understand why investors do invest in RTCs, why they hesitate,
and how third parties might help them be more willing to invest in such companies.
A summary of the results of the survey are presented in tables provided in Attachment A. Where
appropriate, the report's text includes references to tables in Attachment A which support the
observations made in the report. A copy of the survey itself is included as Attachment B.
ECN collected completed surveys from a group of 15 investment professionals. More than 85%
of those responding directly invest capital into early and expansion stage environmental
technology companies. Nearly 45% have tracked the remediation market for 10+ years, while a
total of 80% have tracked the market for at least 3 years (Tables A. 1 and A.2).
It should be noted that these results should not be considered statistically significant, due to the
non-random nature of the surveys' distribution, its small sample size, and the limited number of
responses. Nonetheless, ECN feels that the results are indicative of the opinions of key people
within the investment community who are familiar with this sector and whose actions and
attitudes shape the opinion of others.
The investors indicated that they were, on average, "somewhat familiar" with all of the market
segments considered, with 40% indicating that they were "familiar" or "very familiar" with the
following market segments: Superfund; Non Superfund State/local Cleanup; Corporate
Properties; Brownfield Projects; On site Industrial Waste Treatment; Off site Treatment,
Disposal & Storage; Waste Handling & Hauling; Site Assessment & Investigation; and On site
Industrial Waste Monitoring (Table A.3).
More than 80% of the investors that had seen 11 or more investment proposals from RTCs since
1995, had considered 3-5 of those proposals, and had invested in 1-2 RTCs. Over half of the
investors had placed $2-5 million of capital in RTCs (Tables A.4 and A.5).
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative page4
Remediation Technology Companies ~~~ ~~ ~—
-------
ECN also examined and summarized extensive detailed comments on RTCs that investors have
provided ECN since 1997. These comments were drawn from investor reviews of business plans
submitted to ECN by remediation technology companies that applied to ECN's Environmental
Capital Forums and that have submitted their business plans for our Business Plan Review
Service.
III. Research Findings
This section presents the key findings of this research effort, along with some analysis associated
with the findings.
Finding #1: Investors' assessment of overall investment opportunities in the
remediation industry is not optimistic.
Although a number of investors feel bullish or somewhat optimistic in their assessment of
investment opportunities in the remediation market over the next 3-5 years, eighty percent of
investors indicated that they were neutral, not optimistic or pessimistic regarding the market's
clean-up and characterization sectors, and more than 60% felt the same way about the waste
treatment sector (Table A-7). Not surprisingly, investors tend to invest in growing markets and
industries that they feel positively about. This finding suggests that the challenge to bridge the
valley of death, inherent within the remediation market, will be significant.
Finding #2:
Investors see poor prospects for growth in the remediation market.
It is of primary importance to investors that the companies in which they invest grow in sales and
profits. Investors are successful only when their interest in a company is sold to another party for
a significantly higher price than it was purchased for. Future stock prices are, to a large part,
driven by a company's growth in sales and profits. Without such growth, the investor stands to
lose all or a major portion of his investment.
As a result, investors, particularly venture capitalists, are attracted primarily not only to '
companies that are growing, but to industries that are growing. As stated by Bob Zider in his
article "How Venture Capital Works" in the Harvard Business Review,
Venture capitalists must earn a consistently superior return on investment in
inherently risky businesses. The myth is that they do so by investing in good ideas
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Page5
Remediation Technology Companies
-------
and good plans. In reality, they invest in good industries — that is, industries that are
more competitively forgiving than the market as a whole. (Italics added)3
Given this perspective, it is instructive to note that approximately three quarters of the investors
surveyed felt that the market growth prospects for ten of the market segments4 were declining,
stagnating or slowing. Roughly two thirds of the investors felt that the Non Superfund
state/local, the corporate properties and the brownfield market segments were also declining,
stagnating or slowing.
Investor perceptions appear to be well supported by historical evidence. The overall
environmenta
1 industry grew rapidly in the late 1970s and 1980s, driven in large measure by new
environmental regulations. This expansion spanned numerous rapidly growing businesses, many
of which received considerable investment capital. In the 1990's, however, the market began to
steadily contract. The reasons for this are well known. They include a fundamental shift in U.S.
environmental policy, a growing emphasis on economic instead of regulatory drivers to improve
environmental practices, increasing emphasis on pollution prevention instead of pollution
control, and a focus by manufacturers on cutting costs.5
As an example, revenues in the hazardous waste management and the remediation/industrial
services industries actually declined from a total of $17.4 billion in 1990, to $17.1 billion in
1998. According to one measure, market share within the broader environmental industry
declined from 11.6 percent to 8.9 percent over this same period.6 Indeed, the market sizes of the
hazardous waste treatment and characterization shrunk in absolute terms throughout most of the
1990's.?
3 Zider, Bob. "How Venture Capital Works." Harvard Business Review. November/December 1998
(www.hbsp.harvard.edu/products/hbr/novdec98/98611 .html)
4 The military, national lab, Superfund, spills & emergency response, off-site industrial waste treatment,
waste hauling, site assessment, site monitoring, lab, and on-site industrial monitoring market segments.
5 "Seismic Shift Shakes the Environmental Industry." Steve Maxwell. Massachusetts Environmental
Ventures. Fall 1997.
6 Unpublished analysis conducted by TetraTech EM Inc., 1999.
7 The U.S. Environmental Industry Executive Summary. Office of Technology Policy, Department of
Energy. October 1998. ^
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative Pa<*e 6
Kemediation Technology Companies ~~ ~~
-------
Finding #3: Investors are reluctant to invest in RTCs primarily because of concerns
about the remediation market and the market's potential negative impact
on the profitability of their RTC investments.
The decline of market demand for remediation techno logics combined with growing, and now
excess, remediation capacity in the market has created a situation in which firms can grow
significantly only through consolidation. As a result, the primary business strategy for growth in
the remediation market has been and still is through consolidation, not technological innovation.
The pace, scope and opportunity of consolidation in the industry is considerable.
The remediation market is dominated by highly fragmented end-users serviced by large, mature
companies which have staked out market share in a stagnant market and are growing themselves
primarily through consolidation. This reality can be seen in the market's clean-up sector for
example. The world's four largest firms (Bechtel, ICF Kaiser, Fluour Daniel-GTI and OHM/IT)
have combined worldwide sales of nearly $2 billion, according to Mary Anderson, a consultant
with the Mcllvaine Company. The worldwide market consists of more than 1,000 companies
with annual remediation revenues of more than $1 million, and 14,000 companies worldwide
have remediation clean-up revenues of more than $100,000.8 Consolidation is likely to continue
given the market's limited growth and highly fragmented nature.
Given this situation, RTC's (and their investors) have two options for growth: (1) Merge or
license technologies to other RTCs or to larger companies in the industry which already have
significant market share; or (2) Focus on relatively small niche markets where they can profitably
sell their products and services.9
Not surprisingly, when asked to identify the primary reasons they hesitate to invest, nearly half
of the reasons given were related to the ability of RTCs to gain entry and grow in the market
place. Investors were most concerned about the potential of the RTC to penetrate the market, the
high barriers of entry for a startup into the market, and concern for the overall lack of market
growth (Table A-9).
Closely connected with concerns about the remediation market itself were concerns about the
actual investment opportunity. Nearly 30% of the concerns cited revolved around RTC
profitability and the ability to "cash out" of the investment either through an initial public
offering (IPO) or acquisition. The concern investors have about the profitability of RTCs is well
founded. According to recently conducted analysis, gross profit margins in the industry have
8 Anderson, Mary. "Capturing the Remediation Market." Prepared for Brownfield News.
9 Tetra Tech EM Inc., 1999.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Page?
Remediation Technology Companies
-------
declined steadily from 28.1% in 1988, to 18.3% in 1997. Net profit margins have declined from
10% in 1988, to 2% in 1997. This compares very poorly with many other industries where gross
profit margins typically range, from 40 to 60% and net profit margins range from 20 to 30
percent.10
This concern is also based, in part, upon particularly visible and unfortunate investor experiences
with RTCs. In 1993, five RTCs (Catalytica, Energy BioSystems, Ensys, Purus, and Molten
Metals Technology) went public only to see their stock prices plummet from their original IPO
prices because their lengthy technology development processes caused their earnings to fall far
below initial projections and analyst expectations. The experience of these companies remains
with investors as roughly ten percent of the concerns cited were related to remediation
technology itself, particularly the difficulty and costs associated with verifying technology
performance, costs that directly reduce a firm's profitability.
Investors also indicated that their reluctance was heightened because of the market's reliance on
government regulation, the lack of permit reciprocity and the lack of enforcement of existing
standards. Furthermore, others have noted that the movement toward government policies that
increase "flexibility" primarily through greater "cooperation" with regulated parties will often
favor the use of containment and natural attenuation strategies instead of innovative
technologies.11
In addition, concerns about market penetration and RTC profitability are reflected in the
comments investors have made about RTCs which have applied to present at ECN's
Environmental Capital Forums. The most frequently cited concerns revolved around a limited
and/or very competitive market, followed by concerns about a weak management team. The
order of this is interesting, as concerns about management are typically the most frequent
concern, followed by concerns about the market place for technology companies in most other
industries.
Finding #4: Investors see some promising drivers in the remediation market that
could positively affect their consideration of investing in RTCs.
Investors felt that the three most promising drivers in the remediation market are: (1) The
emergence of new niche market opportunities that have new potential for sales and profit; (2)
The growing flexibility and acceptance of new technologies by the regulatory community; and
10 Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1999.
11 Tetra Tech EM Inc. 1999.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page 8
-------
(3) The availability of new remediation technologies which are better, faster and cheaper- (Table
A-10).
A significant number of the investors also felt that the growing brownfield market, increasing
remediation expenditures by Fortune 1000 companies, as well as the growing international
market for remediation services and increasing expenditures by government are helping to shape
a more promising future for RTCs and are creating new market growth opportunities (Table A-6
and A-10). Investors also noted that the use of remediation related technology in non-remediation
applications thereby creating new markets and lowering production economies of scale for the
RTCs.
It is important to note that investors are encouraged by growing willingness of regulatory permit
writers to accept the use of new technologies. Increasingly, this growing willingness to find
innovative alternatives to slower and more costly traditional remediation technologies is creating
access to market opportunities for innovative technologies that were previously not available. It
is also noteworthy that when investors considered RTCs' strengths during our Forum application
process and in our Business Plan Reviews, the most cited strength noted was the apparent market
need for the technology, followed by notes of a good management team and of superior, proven
technology.
Interestingly, several investors identified the growing availability of insurance policies to cover
project and technology risk as a positive factor. While liability concerns are often a reason used
to avoid innovative technologies,12 these new insurance policies are also making it easier for
larger firms to both use and transfer the use of innovative technologies.
The drivers mentioned above are perceived as affecting the remediation market over the next 3-5
years. In the long term, another driver may emerge as a crucial foundation to the eventual
recovery of this market. The long term premium for clean water and clean land will increase as
global population climbs past 6 billion and unspoiled water and land become scarcer. The
impact of this driver is already being seen in Europe and Asia, where demand for remediation
services and technologies is growing more rapidly than in the U.S.13
These promising drivers have some interesting implications for innovative technologies. The use
of bioremediation and phytoremediation cleanup technologies, for example, is rapidly growing.
According to the Site Remediation World Markets Report 1998-2000, published by the
Mcllvaine Company, worldwide demand for bioremediation and phytoremediation will grow
12 Tetra Tech EM Inc.
13 Anderson, op.cit.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Page 9
Remediation Techno Logy Companies
-------
from $870 million in 1997, to $1.1 billion in 2002. Much of this demand is overseas, where
European demand for these technologies is stronger than US demand, and Asian expenditures are
expected to grow from $200 million in 1997, to $300 million in 2002.
Finding #5: Investors are more likely to invest in RTCs that focus on certain
remediation market sectors, and to avoid others.
While investors tend not to be optimistic about the market as a whole, many are looking closely
at specific segments. Nearly 60% of the investors surveyed indicated a "high" or "very high"
likeliness to invest in RTCs that target the on-site industrial waste treatment segment. Roughly
30% indicated a high or very high likeliness to target RTCs that target the site assessment and
investigation, military cleanup, corporate property cleanup and brownfield property cleanup
segments (A-6).
Brownfield property cleanup is one of the relatively "hot" sectors at the moment. Nearly 20% of
investors felt that the brownfield market segment is experiencing "rapid" growth. Many
brownfields are now being rehabilitated with creative equity and debt financing mechanisms.
Brownfield redevelopment is increasingly approached as a real estate transaction where
remediation technologies that are better,.faster and cheaper can literally add to the bottom line.
While still in its infancy, the potential scope of this market is considerable, as there are between
400,000 and 700,000 brownfield properties nationwide.14
In contrast, very few investors indicated a likeliness to invest in RTCs that target the
analytical/laboratory, the national lab cleanup, the Superfund cleanup, or the on-site industrial
waste monitoring segments.
Finding #6: The most significant steps the government can take to enhance investor
willingness to invest in RTCs are to: (1) Implement stronger policy and
regulatory commitments to use innovative remediation technologies, and,
(2) Aggressively consider new technologies in government clean-up
contracts.
The most commonly investor cited steps for the federal government to take are were to develop a
stronger policy and regulatory commitment to use new technologies and to aggressively consider
14 Anderson, op.cit.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Pase10
-------
new technologies in government cleanup contracts (see Table A-l 1). The investors surveyed
clearly indicted that they want government to become a much more proactive "player" in the
market place by backing its good intentions with stronger actions.
In support of this overall desire, investors felt additional steps should include facilitating the
transfer of accepted new technologies among regulators; accelerating the use of performance
based permits and contracts; facilitating and certifying technology verification; and more
aggressively enforcing existing regulations.
The investment community generally perceives the government as part of the problem primarily
because it sends mixed signals to the marketplace. For example, government regulatory
"flexibility" in some cases allows responsible parties to "remediate" property through natural
attenuation and avoid the need for innovative technologies, while in. other cases "flexibility"
enables regulators to accept the use of an innovative technology that they would otherwise not
allow. Such contrary actions create confusion in the marketplace, confusion that enhances
investor risk thus, keeping investors away. Investors will become more comfortable with RTCs
as they more clearly understand where and how specific government policies and practices affect
specific market segments.
When federal and state government send clear and consistent signals to the marketplace on a
segment-by-segtnent basis, private capital has demonstrated its willingness to invest. An
example is Brownfield Redevelopment where federal and state governments have developed new
flexible and consistent policies and regulatory approaches to innovation solutions and provided
public funds" as a catalyst to facilitate cleanups and redevelopment.
Finding #7: Investors indicated that the most useful information that ECN could
provide them, to enhance their willingness to invest in RTCs, would be
information focused on industry investment and merger/acquisition
activity. For example success stories, and identification of promising
investment opportunities.
Investors generally value information that reduces their investment risk, i.e. information that
increases the probabilities they are going to make the "right" decision. Accordingly, investors
indicated that the most important information for them to be more active in this market is to
know more about who is doing what and who is being successful. They also want to know of
new promising RTC investment opportunities, case studies about past investments, and more
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative - Page 11
Remediation Technology Companies ~~
-------
accessible and objective information about the performance and costs of technologies being
developed and verified (see Table A-12).
Investment intelligence on RTCs and the remediation industry was once provided by Wall Street
investment analysts. It chronicled a rapid rise of fortunes in the 1980s and an even more rapid
decline of fortunes in the 1990's. RTCs and the remediation industry are not followed by
investment analysts today to any significant degree, leaving potential investors with little
guidance or sense of what broader investment activity is happening in the remediation market. In
a situation where investors have many opportunities to fund innovative non-remediation
technology companies, the lack of such information makes it more difficult for investors to feel
comfortable with analyzing and placing capital in RTCs.
Investors also indicated an interest in marketing information related to future government activity
and contracts, specific niche markets, and international market opportunities. Clearly there are
growth opportunities for RTCs in the remediation market. Investors sense them. However, ECN
suspects that investors will not be inclined to act until these opportunities are much more clearly
presented in their terms.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology (Companies
Page 12
-------
IV. Summary and Conclusions
The "valley of death" faced by remediation technology companies is a manifestation of the
absence of private investors willing to invest in small remediation technology companies.
Private investors are absent because they see little opportunity to profit from their investment.
This situation effectively stifles the ability of technology developers to successfully
commercialize innovative remediation technologies.
Private investors have a less than positive view of investment opportunities in the remediation
market. This view is primarily fed by concern about the ability for RTCs to successfully grow
and become profitable in a market that has stagnated growth, shrinking profit margins,
dominated by consolidation and which is very competitive.
While the overall remediation market exhibits little growth, niche market opportunities are
developing which offer potential for sales and profit. These opportunities combined with better
technologies, a more flexible regulatory environment and new market opportunities creates a
basis for optimism that the valley of death, though still wide and deep, may be bridgeable.
Both the federal government and third parties like ECN can.take steps that might increase their
willingness to invest in remediation technology companies. Investors feel the federal
government's actions should revolve around a stronger policy and regulatory commitment to use"
new remediation technologies. ECN feels it is very important that the federal government also
focus on sending clear and consistent signals to the marketplace on a segment-by-segment basis.
Investors will become more comfortable with RTCs as they more clearly understand where and
how specific government policies and practices affect specific market segments.
Investors also felt that the most important information ECN or other third parties could provide is
information about investment transactions and success stories in the remediation market.
Investing in the remediation market is clearly a high risk proposition. Yet, ECN believes
investors will be more comfortable with the risks when they have access to high quality
information about:
The "Hot" Remediation Market Segments - i.e. the market segments that are growing and
where innovative RTCs have a solid opportunity to rapidly grow their revenues and profits.
Investors invest hi market niches that are growing. They need better information about the
nature and dynamics fueling these niches, who to contact for more information, what reports
and magazines to read, and other critical information.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Page 13
Remediation Technology Companies
-------
• Key Trends, Drivers and Successful Business Models - to better understand the underlying
reasons why an RTC may be successful, and how the RTC can achieve success. In addition,
investors need more information to clearly understand where and how specific government policies
and practices affect specific market segments. Investors need to understand the "fundamentals"
why a company may grow, and the "business models" for how a company can grow.
• Profiles of Major Industry "Players" - to better understand who has market power in the
industry, and who controls and manages the market and technology-adoption decisions that
will directly impact an RTC's ability to grow. Investors need to know who the market,
technology, and financial players are, what are their interests, what they look for in RTCs,
and how they operate.
• Recent Private Investment Activity - who else is placing capital in RTCs, what kinds of
capital they are placing, company valuations, who is buying RTCs, and which Wall Street
firms are brokering private placement or merger/acquisition RTC deals. While some
investors prefer to be on a the leading edge of an industry, most prefer to follow the lead of
other investors.
• Case Studies of Successful RTCs - Investors want to know who has been successful and why.
Investor sentiments about this industry are informed mostly by a number of notable RTC
failures. Investors need to learn more about RTC successes.
Such information, which currently does not exist in a coherent fashion aimed specifically at
investors, can provide investors with clues about what is happening in the market and how they
might be more successful as investors.
After working with hundreds of investors for more than five years, ECN has observed that
investor sentiments are a dynamic interplay between perception and reality. Based upon
historical experiences, most investors do not believe they can make sound investments in RTCs,
and the valley of death will persist as long as this is the case.
ECN has also observed, however, that investor perceptions can change as new information is
presented. One critical pathway to changing perceptions is to fill some crucial investment-
related information gaps: investors need current intelligence about investment activity in the
remediation market, RTC success stories, high potential RTCs raising capital, and new emerging
markets for RTCs.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Kemediation Technology Companies
Page 14
-------
The lack of capital available to remediation technology companies will be mitigated only as more
private investors feel they can be successful in betting on innovative technology companies in the
remediation market. While this research has underscored the challenge involved, it has
hopefully also illuminated some real opportunities for ECN and others to take some very positive
and effective steps to accelerate the bridging of the valley of death for RTCs.
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page 15
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF SURVEY
The survey consisted of 13 questions divided into three sections. A summary of the results for
each question is provided below. ECN's approach to this effort was to seek input directly from
individual, professional and corporate investors who have invested or have seriously considered
investing in RTCs. Accordingly, this survey was sent to investment professionals ECN felt are
familiar with the remediation market, who have made investments in RTCs, and who serve as
"gatekeepers" for other investors.
Surveys were sent to 31 investors and responses were received from 15 investors. It should be
noted that these results should not be considered statistically significant, due to the non-random
nature of the survey's distribution, its small sample size, and the limited number of responses.
Nonetheless, ECN feels that the results are indicative of the opinions of key people within the
investment community who are familiar with this sector and whose actions and attitudes shape
the opinions of others.
I.
INVESTOR BACKGROUNDS
Capitalization Role. The investors who responded to the survey were all professional investors
who characterized their capitalization functions as:
Table A. 1. Functions of Responding Investors
Capitalization Role % of Responses
Capital Fund Managers
Investment Bankers
Financial Consultants
Corporate Investors
Individual Investors
Project Financier
Other
25%
21%
18%
11%
11%
7%
7%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Paae A.I
-------
Investor Experience. Nearly 90% of the investors had three or more years of experience
tracking this industry; nearly 45% had tracked the industry for ten or more years.
Table A.2. Number of Years Responding Investor s Have Tracked the Remediation Market
Years Tracking Market % of Investors
10+Years
6-10 Years
3-5 Years
1-2 Years
0 Years
44%
13%
25%
6%
13%
Investor Familiarity with Remediation Market Sectors and Segments. The responding
investors were, on average, "somewhat familiar" with all market segments. Investors indicated if
their degree of familiarity on a 1-5 scale, ranging from "Not at all Familiar" (1) to "Somewhat
Familiar" (3) to "Very Familiar" (5). Average ratings were is shown below, with market
segments where at least 40% of responding investors were "Familiar" or "Very Familiar"
highlighted.
Table A-3. Investor Level of Familiarity with Selected End Markets
Segments Investors where
Market Sector
Market Segment
Cleanup Market
Military
National Labs
Superfund
Non-Superfund State/Local
Corporate Property
Brownfield Projects
Spills, Emergency Response
Treatment Market
On-site Treatment by Industry
Off-site Treatment, Storage, Disposal
Waste Handling, Hauling
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation
Site Monitoring
Analytical/Lab Services
On-site Industrial Monitoring
Average Rating
2.93
2.80
3.47
3.00
3.23
3.25
2.89
3.27
3.47
3.33
3.40
3.27
3.13
3.07
40%+ of investors indicated 4-
5 rating
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.2
-------
Investment Activity in Remediation Technology Companies. As shown below, more than
80% of the investors had seen 11 or more investment proposals from remediation technology
companies since 1995, had seriously considered 3-5 investment proposals, and had invested in 1-
2 of the companies they considered. Most investors who had invested had placed $2-5 million in
capital.
Table A-4. Investors' Investment Activity in Remediation Technology Segment Since 1995
(Percent of Investors and Level of Activity)
Number Since 1995
31+ 11-30 6-10 3-5 1-2 Zero
Proposals Seen (% of Investors)
Proposals Considered (% of Investors)
Investments Made (% of Investors
31%
38%
13%
6%
60%
7%
33%
75%
6%
7%
25%
Table A-5 Amount of Capital Placed in RTCs by Investors Since 1995
Capital Placed (millions)
. $2-5 $1-2 $0.5-1 $0.25-0.5
<$0.25
Percent of Investors
55%
9%
.18%
0%
18%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.3
-------
II. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY PERSPECTIVES
This section presents an overview of investor perspectives on the prospects for market growth,
investment opportunities in the remediation market in three remediation market segments, the
reasons they hesitate to invest, and the promising market trends that may positively affect their
willingness to invest.
Market Growth Prospects. Generally speaking, investors were not optimistic about growth
prospects in the remediation market.
Table A-6. Investor Characterization of Market Growth Prospects
Percent of Investors Percent of Investors Percent of Investors
Indicating Indicating Moderate
Declining, Stagnant Growth
Cleanup Market
Military
National Labs
Superfund
Non-Superfund State/Local
Corporate Property
Brownfield Projects
Spills, Emergency Response
Treatment Market
On-site Treatment by Industry
Off-site Treatment, Storage, Di
Waste Handling, Hauling
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation
Site Monitoring
Analytical/Lab Services
On-site Industrial Monitoring
or Slow Growth
73%
73%
78%
64%
60%
64%
100%
46%
77%
75%
100%
83%
92%
75%
18%
27%
9%
27%
30%
18%
46%
23%
25%
17%
8%
17%
Indicating Rapid
Growth
9%
9%
9%
10%
18%
8%
8%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.4
-------
Assessment of Investment Opportunities in Cleanup, Treatment and Characterization
Remediation Market Segments in Next 3-5 Years. Investors characterized their assessment of
investment opportunities in the three remediation sectors as follows.
Table A-7. Investor Overall Assessment of Investment Opportunities in the Clean-up, Treatment,
and Characterization Segments in the next 3-5 Years
Assessment
Bullish/Somewhat Optimistic
Neutral
Not Optimistic/Pessimistic
Clean-up
19%
44%
37%
100%
Treatment
38%
31%
31%
100%
Characterization
20%
• 47%
33%
100%
Interestingly, the greatest overall level of optimism is for the treatment sector, a sector that is and
has been in a major consolidation phase. This consolidation has benefited many investors in
remediation technology companies that target this sector.
Market Segments Where Investors are More and Less Likely to Invest in RTCs in Next 3
Years. Investors indicated that they were more likely and less likely to invest in the RTCs that
targeted the following market segments:
Table A-8. Likeliness in Next 3 Years of Investing in RTCs that Target Different Segments
Market Segments ; ; % of Investors Indicating High or Very High
More Likely Market Segments
On-site Industrial Hazardous Waste Treatment
Site Assessment/Investigation
Military Clean-up
Corporate Property Clean-up
Brownfield Property Redevelopment
Less Likely Market Segments
Analytical/Laboratory Services
National Lab Clean-up
Superfund Clean-up
On-site Industrial Monitoring
57%
33%
31%
30%
30%
0%
16%
16%
17%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.5
-------
Primary Reasons Investors Hesitate to Invest in Remediation Technology Companies.
Investors expressed a range of primary reasons they were hesitant to invest in remediation
technology companies.
Table A-9. Reasons Why Investors Hesitate to Invest in Remediation Technology Companies
Reason/Concern Frequency Cited
Potential for Market Penetration 12%
Lack of Overall Market Growth 9%
Potential for Investor Profits and ROI 9%
Poor Industry Track Record on Wall Street" 9%
Difficulty & Cost to Verify Technology 8%
Market Reliance on Government Regulation 7%
High Barriers of Entry for Startup into the Marketplace 7%
Lack of Enforcement of Existing Regulations 5%
Lack of Investment "Exits" for Investors 5%
Lack of Permit Reciprocity Among Regulators 4%
Markets are Driven More by Regulations Than Economics 3%
Higher Investor ROI Potential in Other Industries ' 3%
Potential Liability Exposure for Investors 3%
Lack of New, Proprietary, Cost Effective Technology 2%
Promising Remediation Market Drivers Identified by Investors. The investors surveyed
identified several drivers in today's remediation market that could positively affect their
consideration of remediation technology investment opportunities.
Table A-10. Promising Remediation Market Drivers Cited by Investors
Description of Drivers Frequency Cited
Niche Market Opportunities with Potential for Sales, Profits & ROI 19%
Growing Regulatory Flexibility Towards and Acceptance of New Technologies 18%
Better, Faster, Cheaper Technologies 15%
Growing Brownfield Re-development Market Opportunities 11 %
Growing Expenditures by Fortune 1000 Companies 7%
Availability of Insurance Policies to Protect Investors 7%
Technology Applications in Non-Remediation Markets 6%
Growing International Market 6%
Growing Expenditures by Government 4%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative ' Page A.6
Remediation Technology Companies
-------
HI. ACCELERATING NEW INVESTMENTS IN THE INDUSTRY
In the survey, ECN asked investors to suggest actions that the federal government and third
parties such as ECN might take that could enhance their willingness to commit capital to
remediation technology companies.
Most Significant Steps by the Federal Government. The actions most frequently cited by
investors that the Federal Government could take revolved primarily around developing and
implementing a stronger policy and regulatory commitment to use new remediation technologies.
Table A-ll. Most Significant Steps by Federal Government To Increase Investor Willingness to
Commit Capital
Step
Frequency Cited
Develop a Stronger Policy and Regulatory Commitment to Use New Technologies 21%
Aggressively Consider New Technologies in Government Cleanup Contracts 17%
Provide Additional Funding to Support Technology Commercialization 10%
Facilitate Transfer of Accepted New Technologies Among Regulators 10%
Accelerate Use of Performance-Based Regulatory Permits and Contracts 10%
Enforce Existing Regulations More Aggressively 8%
Facilitate and Certify Verification of Remediation Technologies 8%
Establish Better Regulatory Consistency and Cooperation Across Jurisdictions 6%
Provide Additional Funding for Technology R&D 4%
Strengthen Company Business and Marketing Skills 2%
Provide Investors with Market & Technology Information 2%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.7
-------
Most Important Types of Information that ECN or Another Third Party Can Provide.
Investors responding to the survey also identified information that ECN or another third party
could provide that might enhance their willingness to commit more capital to remediation
technology companies. The respondents indicated that most of the important information they
would find most important focuses on industry investment and merger/acquisition activity,
success stories and other case studies, and promising investment opportunities.
Table A-12. Importance of Different Types of Information To Increase Investor Willingness to
Commit Capital
Information Type
Frequency Cited
Data About Industry Investment and M&A Activity 15%
Technology Company "Success Stories" 13%
Identification of High-Potential Investment Opportunities 11 %
Case Studies (Good and Bad) About Private Investments Made 11%
More Accessible Information about Technologies Being Developed and Verifiedl 1%
Objective Technology Performance & Cost Data 11%
Future Government Cleanup Activity & Contracts
Information on Specific Niche Markets
Information on International Market Opportunities
9%
9%
7%
Perspectives on Private Investment in Innovative
Remediation Technology Companies
Page A.8
-------
ATTACHMENT B: SURVEY
Environmental Capital Network
A program of the Center for Environmental Policy, Economics, and Science
Return Fax Directions. Please Return by September 15,1999.
To: Loch McCabe, ECN @ 734-996-8732
From:
INVESTOR INTEREST IN HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIATION
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
Dear Investor:
ECN seeks to learn more about investor interest in hazardous waste remediation technology
companies. To this end, ECN is conducting a limited query of selected investors who have placed or
considered placing capital in companies commercializing innovative remediation technologies,
specifically technologies that clean-up, treat and/or characterize hazardous wastes.
This query is important, as it will enhance ECN's ability to effectively provide guidance to
remediation technology companies and to government programs that affect the investment potential
of such firms.
Please take 10-15 minutes to complete the following query and fax or mail your response to ECN by
September 15, 1999.
You may contact me at mccabe@recycle.com or 734-996-8387 with any questions. For completing
this query, we will provide you with a copy of the findings.
We appreciate your input. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely Yours,
Loch McCabe
I. Investor Background:
I.a What type of "investor" are you? (Please check all that apply)
Individual Investor Project Financier
Venture Capital Fund Investment Banker
Corporate Investor Financial Consultant
Lender Other
I.b For how many years have you tracked the remediation industry? (Please check one)
Zero 1-2 3-5 6-10 10+years
416 Longshore Drive- Ann Arbor, Mi 48105- '161.734.996.8387 • fax. 734.996.8732
ecn@BizServe.com • http://BizServe.com/ecn
-------
I.c How would you characterize your familiarity with the following hazardous waste clean-up, treatment, and
characterization market segments within the remediation industry? (Please check one)
Not at all Somewhat
Familiar Familiar
Clean-up Market
Military (US Dept. of Defense) 1 234
National Labs (US Dept. of Energy) 1 2 3 4
Superfund (EPA, PRP, States) 1 2 3 ' 4
Non-Superfund State/Local Cleanup Projects 1 2 3 4
Corporate Property Clean-up Projects (incl. USTs*) 1234
Brownfield Real Estate Development Projects - 1 2 3 4
Accidental Spills, Emergency Response 1234
Other 1 2 3 4
Treatment Market
On-site Treatment by Industrial Manufacturers 1234
Off-site Waste Treatment, Storage & Disposal 1 2 3 4
Waste Handling, Hauling and Related Services 1 2 3 4
Other 1 2 3 4
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation Services 1234
Site Monitoring Services 1234
Analytical/Laboratories Services 1 2 3 4
On-site Industrial Process Waste Monitoring 1 2 3 4
Other 1234
* Underground storage tanks
I.d How many investment proposals from remediation technology companies have you seen, seriously
considered, and made since 1995? (Please check one per question)
Very
Familiar
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Investment Proposals
Seen?
31+ companies
companies
_ 11-30
_ 6-10
_ 1-5
Zero
Investment Proposals
Seriously Considered?
11+ companies
_ 6-10
_ 3-5
_ 1-2
Zero
Investments
Made?
_ 11+
_ 6-10
_ 3-5
_ 1-2
Zero
I.e What is the approximate total amount of investment? (Please check one)
Less than $250,000
_ 5250,000 up to $500,000
$500,000 up to $1 million
$1 up to $2 million
$2 up to $5 million
$5 up to $10 million
$10 up to $50 million
$50 million or more
investor Interest in Hazardous Waste Remediation Technology Companies. 9/99
Page B.2
-------
I.f
Please rate the importance of the types of informational sources you use to track the marketplace,
industry changes, technology changes, and other influences that could affect your investment decisions?
(Please circle your response, or leave blank)
Personal Resources
Personal and Professional Contacts
Personal Experience and Research
Industry Resources
Industry Associations
Industry Publications
Industry Websites
Government Resources
Government Publications
Government Meetings
Government Websites
Other
Other
Not
Important
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Important
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Critical
5
5
11. Investor .Perspectives
Il.a
What are the primary reasons you hesitate to invest in environmental remediation technology
companies? (Please check up to 5 reasons. Additional reasons are welcomed.)
Technology & Regulatory Concerns
Difficulty and high cost associated with verifying technologies
Lack of enforcement of existing regulations
Lack of permit reciprocity across state and agency jurisdictions
Lack of performance-based regulatory standards
Other
Market Concerns
Lack of overall market growth
Manufacturers' focus on process control remedies to reduce hazardous waste
Questions about a company's potential for market penetration and ability to achieve
significant size in a market that is mature and dominated by large firms
Discomfort with the degree of government involvement in marketplace
Discomfort with a reliance on government regulations that do not provide sufficient
demand for ew remediation-related technologies and services
Other
Investment Concerns
Concerns about new firm's potential for profitability and return on investment
Liability concerns with owning a remediation technology company
Poor industry track record on Wall Street and few recent "winners" in the industry
Lack of an exit strategy for remediation technology companies into the IPO market
Higher likelihood of financial success in other industries such as IT and telecom
Other
investor interest in Hazardous Waste Remediation Technology Companies. 9/99
PageB.3
-------
H.b What are the most promising drivers in the remediation marketplace and industry that positively affect
your consideration of future funding proposals? (Please check up to five. Additional trends are
welcomed.)
Technology Advancements
Many new technologies are better, faster, and cheaper
Many new technologies have applications in non-remediation markets
Government and other third parry technology verification efforts
Other
Market Growth Potential
Niche market opportunities with potential for strong sales, profits and ROI
Growing expenditures by federal, state, and local government
Growing expenditures by Fortune 1000 for remediation services
Growing expenditures by small and mid-sized manufacturers
Growing demand overseas for remediation services
Growing brownfield redevelopment activity by private property developers
Introduction of insurance carriers to protect investors in brownfield projects
Other
Regulatory Changes
Regulatory framework is becoming more flexible regarding new technologies
Increased receptivity to new technologies by regulators
Increased willingness of regulators for permit reciprocity
Increased government spending and contracting flexibility
Other
H.c Please rate your general willingness to consider investing in remediation technology companies that are
targeting the following end-markets over the next 3 years? (Please circle your response)
Very Low Very High
Clean-up Market *
Military (US Dept. of Defense) 12345
National Labs (US Dept. of Energy) 1 2 34 5 '
Superfund (EPA, PRP, States) 12345
Non-Superfund State/Local Cleanup Projects 12345
Corporate Property Clean-up Projects (incl. USTs*) 12345
Brownfield Real Estate Development Projects 12345
Accidental Spills, Emergency Response 12345
Other 12,3 45
Treatment Market
On-site Treatment by Industrial Manufacturers 12345
Off-site Waste Treatment, Storage & Disposal 12345
Waste Handling, Hauling and Related Services 12345
Other : 1 2 34 5
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation Services 1 2 345
Site Monitoring Services 1 23 4.5
Analytical/Laboratories Services 1 2 3 4 5
On-site Industrial Process Waste Monitoring 12345
Other 12345
* Underground storage tanks
Il.d How would you characterize your overall assessment of investment opportunities in the environmental
remediation, treatment and characterization industry segments in the next 3-5 years? (Please check one)
Clean-up
Bullish
Somewhat Optimistic
Neutral
Not Optimistic
Pessimistic
Treatment
_ Bullish
Somewhat Optimistic
Neutral
Not Optimistic
Pessimistic
Characterization
_ Bullish
Somewhat Optimistic
Neutral
Not Optimistic
Pessimistic
Investor Interest in Hazardous Waste Remediation Technology Companies. 9/99
Fage ts.4
-------
Not Sure
Not Sure
Not Sure
ill. Accelerating INew Investments in the industry
Ill.a How would you characterize the growth prospects for the following market segments? (Please circle
your response, or leave blank)
Clean-up Market
Military (US Dept. of Defense)
National Labs (US Dept. of Energy)
Superfund (EPA, PRP, States)
Non-Superfund State/Local Cleanup Projects
Corporate Property Clean-up Projects (incl. USTs)
Brownfield Real Estate Development Projects
Accidental Spills, Emergency Response
Other
Treatment Market
On-site Treatment by Industrial Manufacturers
Off-site Waste Treatment, Storage & Disposal
Waste Handling, Hauling and Related Services
Other
Characterization Market
Site Assessment/Investigation Services
Site Monitoring Services
Analytical/Laboratories Services
On-site Industrial Process Waste Monitoring
Other
No Slow Moderate Rapid
Declining Growth Growth Growth Growth
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Investor Interest in Hazardous Waste Remediation Technology Companies. 9/99
Page B.5
-------
IH.b What are the three most significant steps that the Federal Government could take to improve the
willingness of investors to commit Capital to environmental remediation technology companies?
(Please check your three most significant responses).
Resources and Programs
Aggressively consider new technologies in government clean-up contracts
Provide more funding to support more remediation technology R&D
Provide more funding to support technology commercialization
Facilitate verification of new remediation technologies
Work to strengthen the business and marketing skills of young technology firms
Provide more relevant information about remediation markets and technologies
Other
Regulatory Reform
Develop a serious policy and regulatory commitment to utilizing new technologies
Establish regulatory consistency and cooperation across jurisdiction
Conduct more aggressive enforcement of existing regulations
Accelerate the use of performance-based regulatory permits and contracting
Facilitate transfer of acceptances of new technologies by different regulators
Other
Other
Other
III.c What are the three most important types of information that ECN or another third party can provide
you or the industry to enhance your willingness to commit more capital to environmental remediation
and characterization technology companies? (Please check the four most important)
Technology Information
More accessible information about technologies being developed and verified
Objective technology performance and cost data
Guidelines to technology uses for specific types of applications
Other
Market Information
Better information about future government clean-up activity and contracts
Better information about specific remediation niche markets corporate remediation
Better information about international marketing opportunities
Other
Investment Information
Remediation and characterization technology company "Success Stories"
Data about investments, mergers and acquisitions of companies
Better information about private and public financial transactions in industry
Identifying investment opportunities with high-growth potential
Case studies (good and bad) about investments in these companies
Other __
THANK YOU!
Investor interest m Hazardous Waste Remediation Technology Companies. 9/99~~ Page B.6
------- |