Author: Paul Wallbank

  • China’s investment paradox

    China’s investment paradox

    A great video by Professor Tyler Cowen on the Marginal Revolution University website looks at China’s successes, the challenges the nation faces and the economy’s likely future.

    Ultimately Cowen brings the whole story down to one factor – investment. The post 1979 investment that saw the nation’s productive capacity explode, the post 2008 investments that he believes has distorted the economy and his optimism about China’s future because of investments made in the PRC’s human capital.

    It’s fourteen minutes well spent in getting a basic understand of what China has accomplished in the last 40 years and the challenges the nation currently has to deal with.

    Similar posts:

  • Controlling the unicorns

    Controlling the unicorns

    Last week Salesforce founder Marc Benioff warned the tech unicorns – companies valued at over a billion dollars based on investor funding – were leaving their stock market debuts too late.

    The initial public offering of payments platform Square bears Benioff’s warning out, with the company’s IPO market value being less than the company’s implied value at its last private fundraising.

    What’s notable about the unicorns’ reluctance to go public and the limited nature of the stock market floats – Square is only making 8% of its equity available – is the desire from founders and key investors not to relinquish control.

    For the moment that desire not to cede control is tolerated by investors but in a declining market, shareholders may not be so tolerant.

    Times could be about to get tough for the unicorns as the downside of massive valuations becomes apparent.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Getting crowdfunding right

    Getting crowdfunding right

    Crowdfunding is not for every business or project, however the great story on the success of Flow Hives shows how it can be done right.

    Flow Hives, based on the North Coast of the Australian state of New South Wales, is a father and son business that has cracked the way for consumers to raise bees and get fresh honey from the hives without having to suit up.

    There’s a few notable points in Flow Hives’ story  that challenges a lot of the basic wisdom about starts ups and funding we’re hearing at the moment.

    Taking the long path

    Flow Hives’ founders,Stu and Cedar Anderson, spent ten years getting the basics right. That’s a long time to get a Minimum Viable Product to the market.

    On top of that, they were experienced bee keepers, not keen young outsiders looking to ‘disrupt’ what they saw as a staid industry.

    Carefully choosing support

    Like all good Australian businesses, the Andersons’ first stop was at the government where they found the support programs were too cumbersome and onerous. Another problem they’d have encountered with that path would have been the funds available are trivial compared to the time spent on compliance.

    They found a similar thing with the courting of investors being too much of a distraction and, rightly, saw that VC and seed money is actually quite expensive. This made crowdfunding a viable options.

    Selecting production methods

    While 3D printing worked for prototypes it didn’t scale for production runs. Knowing they’d need injection moulding for their plastic parts, the Andersons chose a local supplier rather than dealing with the lowest cost operator in China so they would have better control over their supply chain.

    Coupled with choosing a local supplier for their plastic components the Andersons’ also chose a US supplier for the wooden enclosures based upon the service they received.

    Going with trusted suppliers meant they were able to get a good product to market quickly. When a Chinese company attempted a cheap imitation it failed because of the shoddy quality.

    The Flow Hive story is a good reminder that the principles of the today’s tech startup culture are only applicable to small group of the businesses in specific sectors.

    In a diverse economy, there’s many different other business principles and models that might apply. Trying to shoehorn one type of business into a different model may well be a mistake.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • San Francisco’s Proposition F fails

    San Francisco’s Proposition F fails

    Proposition F, the local government initiative to restrict short term rentals in San Francsico, failed in that city elections yesterday.

    Needless to say, AirBnB is pretty happy about this but the problems of unaffordable cities will continue.

    Update: Emboldened by their victory in San Francisco, AirBnB now intends to roll out ‘community groups‘ to fight regulations across the US.

    Airbnb says it will provide resources and some infrastructure to these local groups but expects hosts and guests to ultimately run them as the clubs proliferate in the same “grassroots” manner that Airbnb itself has grown. The clubs are meant to organize and advocate for home-sharing with their local city councils and elsewhere in the community. When pressed, Lehane declined to specify how much, exactly, Airbnb would spend on the clubs.

    This overt politicising – it’s hard to call it ‘astroturfing’ when the company is so open about it – is interesting on a number of levels and it illustrates shows how the promise of renewed community engagement and activism through the internet has been usurped by corporate interests.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Building a digital hub – and why governments shouldn’t try.

    Building a digital hub – and why governments shouldn’t try.

    “I’m not sure what to do with this,” frowned the public service executive to a group of blank faced departmental staffers. “I’ll take it,” I said to break the silence.

    With that, I was on a journey into exactly what Sydney’s startup and digital media communities looked like and learning why governments struggle to build technology hubs.

    I’d been working for the state government for two months after a specularly unsuccessful exit from a business and in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis getting a public service job seemed like a good idea.

    Vague ideas

    The project being discussed by Bob, my then director, was a single line in the recommendations from the then Premier’s Jobs Summit which was convened in the panicky dark days of the 2008 global financial crisis – “A digital hub will be setup around the Australian Technology Park.”

    Bob, and the management of the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment had little idea of what a ‘digital hub’ was and my position of ‘Manager, Creative Industries” – with a staff of precisely zero – was vague given the state’s support to the creative industries was, and remains, based on throwing big buckets of money at the Hollywood movie studios.

    So the Sydney Digital Hub was born and the quest to find out exactly was was needed, or at least would keep the Premier’s office happy, was on.

    It immediately became apparent the Australian Technology Park wasn’t going to be the centre of anything as far as Sydney’s startup community was concerned. The complex was too far away from the city and too expensive for most of the businesses.

    Replacing what’s existing

    “We already have a digital hub,” was the other response. “It’s Surry Hills.” Which was a far call as a large part of the Sydney startup and digital media communities were based in the suburb on the edge of the city’s centre.

    This actually worked well as the exact wording of the committee’s recommendation was “create a digital hub around the Australian Technology Park.” In this case, Surry Hills was ‘around’ the ATP.

    Eventually the project became Digital Sydney and by the time it was launched, the state had gone through two Premiers, elected another party into government and I was long gone from the department, having lasted just 19 months.

    Before leaving, I had managed to steer through a million dollars in funding for the project from the then Labor minister – since caught up on corruption charges surrounding coal mine leases – which, to their credit, was honoured by the incoming Liberal government that took power shortly after.

    Dying a slow, unfunded death

    That funding was renewed and the project died a slow death, which didn’t really matter as Sydney’s startup and digital media communities had developed despite of, not because of, any government policies. Indeed, the New South Wales’ government’s economic development policies were, and remain, focused on property development and coal mining.

    Which brings us to the present day, where the Sydney startup community is upset at the Sydstart conference being poached by the Victorian government and moving to Melbourne on the promise of a million dollars in support as part of the state’s startup program.

    The promoters of the now relocated and renamed conference are adamant it matters, but the truth is it doesn’t. In fact the biggest ticket item of NSW government support to the IT sector is the annual CeBIT conference that in truth has added little to the state’s technology industry and many similar initiatives in Victoria have had a similar lack success.

    A lack of long term vision

    Part of the reason for that lack of success is a lack of consistency and long term strategies, in fact the Australian Technology Park itself is under threat as the state government looks at selling the site to apartment developers despite the protests of the tech community.

    Another aspect is state sponsored conferences, hubs and initiatives are not enough to create an industrial centre. There has to be an organic, or business, reason for a hub to develop.

    For industry hubs, be they tech startups or anything else, the core need is a critical mass of investors and skilled workers with easy access to markets. For internet based businesses, the latter isn’t an issue which is why Wellington in New Zealand has done better than either Sydney or Melbourne in recent years.

    Providing stable frameworks

    The role of governments in this is to provide a stable framework for businesses to work within, something that hasn’t been a feature of state or Federal Australian politics in recent years with leadership instability and the increasing prevalence of policy by thought bubble, a good example being the latest scheme to create a new technology hub even further out of downtown Sydney on the site of disused power station.

    While the talk of government sponsored initiatives is nice and keeps my former colleagues at the state government occupied writing ministerial briefings on pink paper, building the tech hubs of the future needs motivated entrepreneurs, investors and skilled workers. The best thing governments can do is make sure they encourage all three groups and leave the community building to the community.

    Similar posts: