Category: Investment

  • Duly diligent

    Duly diligent

    “Who would have thought our CEO didn’t have the qualifications we thought he had?” wonders the Yahoo! board.

    “It seems we forgot to count the number of beds!” whines the cleaning contractor when challenged about a filthy hospital.

    “We had no idea these people were corrupt,” growls the politician and former trade union official when confronted with proof its factional friends were misusing expenses.

    An interesting phenomenon in the rise of the managerial classes over the last thirty years has been the group’s refusal to take responsibility for their failures.

    Instead we see boards, investors, managers and politicians duck responsibilities that a reasonable observer would have thought is the reason for their healthy salaries, bonuses and perks.

    One of the many conceits of 1980s thinking is the ideology of “personal responsibility” – to low paid workers and those at the bottom of society this mantra is applied ruthlessly.

    The call centre worker who makes a mistake gets counselled or fired while the aboriginal kid who steals a can of coke is denied bail and goes to jail.

    Let’s not mention the fines and sanctions that befall a small business owner who is too slow in submitting paperwork or forgets to pay one of the countless fees that make up today’s hidden taxation.

    In boardrooms and Parliaments those doing the wrong thing rarely face any accountability; politicians caught misclaiming expenses are allowed to pay it back at their convenience while senior executives and captains of industry with a track record of mistakes continue to be employed in positions way beyond their abilities.

    One exception to the that rule is former Tyco Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski and his cohorts who looted their company through the 1990s. Eventually their excesses became so great that the CEO and his cronies ended up being jailed.

    Not that this has rattled some of his cronies sense of entitlement. Former CFO Mark Swartz is suing the company for $60 million in retirement benefits and other monies.

    I have a personal connection with Messrs Swartz and Kozlowski – I worked for their company in the mid 1990s and lasted nine months in a culture of cronyism and rorts where middle management enthusiastically aped the excesses of their senior executives.

    One can argue I didn’t carry out my due diligence – a little bit of digging and more detailed asking around would have revealed Tyco’s institutionalised corruption and cronyism at the time.

    I paid for this oversight by having my contract terminated in a public and humiliating way which drove me to set up my own business.

    While working for companies like Tyco I saw them drive smaller businesses into the ground through slow, or non payment, of invoices. Strangely they always seemed to pay the corporate hospitality bills on time.

    The weakness in today’s corporatist economy is that boards like that at Yahoo!, executives like Tyco’s in the 1990s and many of our business and political leaders have a sense of entitlement way beyond the value they add to their business, community or society.

    Worse, the main lesson of 2008’s financial crisis is that massive government spending will protect these peoples’ bonuses and privileges regardless of their actions.

    As investors, employees, suppliers and voters we have to do our due diligence on these people and organisations. We have the tools today to check the track record of those who want our vote, skills or products.

    In today’s economy, we can’t afford to squander money or time on those who demand fat fees and salaries without delivering value.

    At the cash register and ballot box, it’s time to do our due diligence.

    Similar posts:

  • Monetizing the Masses

    Monetizing the Masses

    Monetization is a horrible word.

    The term is necessary though as many online business models are based upon giving away a service or information for free. For those businesses to survive, they have to find a way to “monetize” their user base.

    When Google were floated in 2003, the question was how could a free search engine “monetize” their users. The answer was in advertising and Google today are the world’s biggest advertising platform.

    Facebook’s Inital Public Offering (IPO) announcement raises the same question; how does a company valued 99 times earnings find a way to justify the faith of its investors?

    Advertising is the obvious answer but that seems to flattening out as the company’s revenue growth is slowing in that space. The AdWords solution tends to favour Google more than publishers as most advertising supported websites have found.

    Partnering with application developers like the game publisher Zynga is another solution. Again though this appears to be limited in revenue and Zynga itself seems to be having trouble growing its Facebook user numbers.

    So the question for Facebook is “where will the profits come from?”

    There’s no doubt the data store Facebook has accumulated is valuable but how the social media service can “monetize” this asset without upsetting their users is open to question.

    For Facebook the stakes are high as the comparisons with Friendster and MySpace are already being drawn.

    We’ll see more partnerships like the Facebook Anti-virus marketplace, but these seem to be marginal at best.

    In the next few months things will get interesting as Facebook’s managers and investors strive to find ways to make a buck out of a billion users who don’t pay for the service.

    While “monetization” is an ugly word, it is one that every online company thinks about.

    Every web based businesses will be watching how Facebook manage their monetization strategy closely as the entire industry struggles with the faulty economics of providing services for free.

    Similar posts:

  • The Free Myth

    The Free Myth

    One of the biggest dangers to businesses is the belief that something is “free”.

    As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When another business gives you something for free it’s safe to say there is a cost somewhere.

    One of the speakers at the City of Sydney’s Let’s Talk Business social media event stated this when talking about social media saying “I can’t believe all businesses aren’t on Facebook – it’s free.”

    Social media isn’t free. We all know the value services like Facebook are mining are the tastes, habits and opinions of their users.

    For businesses, engaging heavily in Facebook or any other social media service hands over far more information about their customers to a third party than they themselves would be able to collect.

    All of that information handed over to a service like Google or Facebook can come back to bite the business, particularly if a well cashed up competitor decides to advertise at the demographic the business caters to.

    The core fallacy though is that these service are “free”. They aren’t.

    Every single service comes with a time cost. Every social media expert advises the same thing, businesses have to post to their preferred service of choice at least three times a week and those posts should be strategically thought out.

    That advice is right, but it costs time.

    For a business owner, freelancer or entrepreneur time is their scarcest asset. You can always rebuild your bank account but you can never recover time.

    Big businesses face the same problem, but they overcome this with money by hiring people for their time. In smaller businesses, this time comes out of the proprietor’s twenty-four crowded hours each day.

    The computer and internet industries are good at giving away stuff for free, in doing so they burn investors’ money and the time of their users. The social media business model hopes to pay a return to investors by trading the data users contribute in their time.

    While businesses can benefit from using social media services, they have to be careful they aren’t wasting too much of their valuable time while giving away their customers to a third party.

    Often when somebody looks back on their life they say “I wish I had more time.” They’ve learned too late that asset has been wasted.

    Wasting that unreplaceable asset on building someone else’s database would be a tragedy.

    Similar posts:

  • Bubble values

    Bubble values

    The argument continues about Facebook’s purchase of photo sharing site Instagram.

    One side claims a billion dollars for a business with barely any revenue and 13 employees is clear evidence of a bubble while the other side say its a strategic purchase that is only 1% of Facebook’s estimated $100 billion market value.

    The latter argument is deeply flawed, comparing the purchase price against the value of other assets is always risky – particularly in a market where those underlying assets are being valued at the same inflated rates.

    We could think of it in terms of a Dutch farmer in early 1637 claiming that paying a thousand Florins for a tulip is fine when he has a warehouse containing hundreds of them.

    In reality, that farmer during the Dutch Tulip mania of the 17th Century held contracts for delivery; just as modern day investors held Collateral Debt Obligations.

    Measuring value against other inflated assets is always dangerous and only fuels a bubble.

    A much more concerning way of judging the wisdom of Facebook’s investment is against profit and revenue.

    If we compare the purchase of Instagram against Facebook’s revenue, then the investment has cost them three months income.

    Should we compare the acquisition against profit, Instagram has cost Facebook five years of profit at current rates.

    Both of those numbers are very high and it indicates how big a gamble the Instagram acquisition is for Facebook.

    It can be argued there is a lot of blue sky ahead for Facebook and that future profits and revenues will justify the Instagram purchase.

    There’s also a very compelling argument that Facebook has to get into mobile services and Instagram does that.

    Whether Instagram is worth three months income or five years profit to Facebook remains to be seen, but we should have no doubt it indicates we are well into Tech Boom 2.0.

    Similar posts:

  • Cargo cults and your business

    Cargo cults and your business

    “We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

    “Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

    “China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

    “Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

    “I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

    We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

    It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

    Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

    There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

    For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

    Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

    The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

    What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

    China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

    The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

    In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

    Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

    John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons

    Similar posts: