Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Category: Investment

  • 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
  • Crowdfunding future businesses

    Crowdfunding future businesses

    Three years after the Jobs Act was signed into law by President Obama, the US Securities and Investment commission has proposed the rules for crowdfunding business capital.

    Behind the Jobs Act was the idea that new ways of funding businesses are needed in an era when banks, thanks to the flawed Basel Accords, have stepped away from what could be argued is one of the key functions of a financial systems – funding the wheels of commerce.

    So the new regulations are needed and the idea that funding can be raised quickly from crowds of supporters is one that ties well with the current ideas of crowdfunding products.

    Crowdfunding a business, particularly where equity is involved, is a very different matter than asking supporters for a few hundred dollars to manufacture a smartwatch, produce a music album or write a book. Modern securities law is based upon three centuries of charlatans defrauding investors.

    The SEC’s caution is clear in the guidelines that restrict crowdfunding to a small group of businesses seeking funding through Federally approved services and drastically limit the amounts that can be raised.

    • A company can raise a total of $1 million through crowdfunding in a 12-month period
    • In any 12-month period, individual cannot stake more than $100,000.
    • Individuals earning less than $100,00o per year can invest either $2,000 or 5% of their annual income.
    • People with greater than $100,0000 can stake 10 percent of the lesser of their annual income or net worth

    For companies the eligibility for crowdfunding even tighter with the following prohibited;

    • non-U.S. companies
    • securities trading companies registered under the Exchange Act
    • certain investment companies
    • companies the SEC has disqualified
    • companies that have failed to comply submit annual reporting requirements
    • companies that have no specific business plan
    • Companies that have indicated that their business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies.

    That latter provision presents a problem for the tech startup based upon the current Silicon Valley ‘greater fool’ business plan however luckily for them, crowdfunding equity won’t be countered for companies worth under $25 million for other securities reporting requirements.

    What will be interesting is how savvy startup founders can use these rules – perhaps use this system to create a company structure and then use product specific crowdfunding projects to raise working capital.

    Just like project based crowdfunding, it’s likely these schemes will be used as a market test to measure community interest in a business. This may well also be a way to attract investors hungry for hot new startups to invest it.

    What is likely though is the current insider driven model of startup funding will remain. While there’ll be many worthy businesses seeking capital through crowdfunding, we can be sure the bulk of startup money will come through the insular world of VCs and tech investors.

    The main criticism though of these proposals are the low limits. This will make crowdfunding unworkable for all but the earliest and smallest of new ventures. The money will be handy for those who qualify, but more needs to be done to spark investment in the businesses of the future.

    Similar posts:

  • Not following the herd – Investors discover agtech

    Not following the herd – Investors discover agtech

    One of the most ignored industries when it comes to technology is agriculture, which is odd as farmers and their downstream supply chain are probably on of the most tech intensive industries of all.

    That may be changing though, New York analyst firm CB Insights reports Agtech deals jumped three fold last year following Monsanto’s acquisition of Climate Corporation.

    A $150 million a year in investments though is still quite small compared to some of the sectors investors are piling money into.

    That there is comparatively little attention paid to agricultural technology companies probably tells us much about the herd mentality of investors, it also suggests there’s some great opportunities for savvy business people.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts