Tag: Australia

  • Winning the three-legged race

    Winning the three-legged race

    Does tying together two lame men give you an Olympic sprinter?

    It’s quite common in the business world to see two second rate companies merging in the hope that their combined market share will give them enough momentum to overcoming the market leader.

    The tactic rarely works as the businesses running third, fourth or fifth in a market are usually doing so because they have ordinary products or indifferent management rather than any inherited size disadvantage.

    Merging two second-rate companies usually results with a pair of competing silos of mediocrity where the former workforce and management of the original business squabble over power in the new entity.

    Far from being more competitive, the merged company is even more distracted with internal politics and power plays.

    The story that Australian department store Myer proposed a merger with its rival David Jones is a very good example of this as two poorly run companies whose managements that have abjectly failed to adapt to the modern times, try to paper over their chronic problems by merging.

    Both companies have failed internet strategies – Myer’s website managed to collapse during the Christmas sales season and no-one could be bothered fixing it for over week.

    Along with lousy internet strategies, both companies have underinvested in IT systems leaving their point of sales and logistics systems antiquated and incapable of meeting modern customers’ needs.

    Probably the greatest mistake that Myer and David Jones’ management made though was a focus on cutting costs through reducing sales staff.

    The resulting lousy and often pathetic service resulted in both brands being seriously tarnished and had the effect of driving high value customers away.

    Further damaging the stores reputation was the tactic of offering perpetual sales which trained the customers that would still shop with them into waiting for goods to be marked down rather than paying full price.

    Merging the two operations would have done little to resolve any of the long term management failings of the two businesses, although no doubt there would have been some fat advisors fees for some of the boards’ friends.

    Nothing fixes poor management better than getting rid of the poor managers, merging two poorly run business like Myer and David Jones does nothing.

    Retailers failing as their poor management struggles to deal with changing marketplaces is an international problem, as this story about US chain Sears illustrates. The Australian experience though is a classic case study of two poorly led organisations trying to pretend their failings can be fixed through mergers.

    Resolving the problems of troubled companies like Sears, David Jones and Myer involves having good management and smart investment, merging with a similarly troubled organisation solves little except perhaps putting off the day of reckoning.

    Similar posts:

  • What do startup founders really earn?

    What do startup founders really earn?

    One of the myths of the current cult of the entrepreneur is that everyone will be a winner as their startup gets bought out by Google for a billion dollars. The reality is life for a startup founder is a grind.

    Startup Compass looked at 11,000 startups across the world to discover what founders really earn and the results show the reality of life when you’re starting up a business is that the wages are pretty poor.

    In San Francisco, London and New York, the wages are piddling compared to the cost of living in those cities.

    Low pay and business success

    This is good news for investors though, as there’s a clear correlation between the success of a startup business and the salaries its key staff members draw – successful businesses are built on the back of founders ploughing everything into the venture.

    It’s also high risk as a failed business can leave the founder with nothing to show for several years of hard work, something that’s overlooked by the ‘liberate yourself from your cubicle’ gurus advocating everyone starts up their own venture.

    Australia’s high cost economy

    Notable in the stats is the high rates demanded by Australian founders, more than 25% higher than their Silicon Valley counterparts and a gob-smacking 60% more than London or Canadian equivalents.

    Australia’s high cost of doing business was emphasised last year where a comparison by Staff.com found Sydney was the second to Zurich as a place to base a tech startup. Worryingly, that survey didn’t consider owners’ drawings.

    Part of Australia’s high wage requirements are no doubt due to the country’s lousy tax treatment of options and share plans but a bigger problem is property ownership – an Australian who hasn’t bought a home by 35 is destined to be one of the nation’s underclass.

    So an Aussie entrepreneur has to earn enough to qualify for or service a mortgage, it also discourages Australians from starting even moderate risk ventures.

    The consequence of the need to draw a high salary is that the proportion of investor funds that goes into founders’ wages is almost three times higher in Australia than it is in Silicon Valley. That’s a big disincentive for foreign investors to put money into Aussie startups.

    If you wanted an example of how uncompetitive the Australian economy has become, this is a good start.

    Regardless of where a startup is based though, the message remains that the road to a billion dollar buyout from Google or Facebook is not paved with gold.

    Similar posts:

  • Does the motor industry matter in the 21st Century?

    Does the motor industry matter in the 21st Century?

    One of the key drivers of Twentieth Century industrialisation was the motor industry. Today it’s an industry plagued by over production, distorted by government subsidies and increasingly dominated by a small group of major players.

    In Australia, the Productivity Commission examined how the motor industry was evolving and its preliminary report (PDF) is a good snapshot of the current state of play in the global automobile sector.

    Chronic worldwide overcapacity is what stands out most starkly in the report with most of the world’s manufacturers operating at less than the 80% production break even point that’s assumed in the industry.

    global-motor-industry-overcapacity

    Australia is a good example of how the motor industry was held as being essential to a country’s development. Like most of the world, the early Twentieth Century saw dozens of small automobile manufacturers pop up in the backyards of enthusiastic tinkerers – it’s like the surge in smartphone apps today.

    Eventually only a handful survived the industry shakeout following the Great Depression and by the end of World War II the industry was largely dominated by US, British and European manufacturers, today that consolidation has increased with East Asian producers replacing the UK carmakers.

    The lessons of World War II

    One of the lessons from World War II was that having a strong domestic manufacturing industry was a nation’s strategic advantage. So governments around the world protected and subsidised their automobile industries along with other factories.

    For Australia, bringing in the required labour to run those manufacturing industries was a seen as a key to the nation’s post World War II growth and it was one of the contributors to the country’s ethnic diversity that started to flower in the late 1970s.

    Today the echoes of those policies remain with governments around the world still subsidising their motor industries despite the economic and strategic military benefits of automobile manufacturing being dubious at best.

    Australia’s failure

    In Australia the modest incentives provided by governments hasn’t been enough to keep local car plants operating, which was the reason for the Productivity Commission’s report into the future of the industry.

    The report’s message is stark for Australia, as a high cost nation that hasn’t invested in skills or capital equipment there’s little reason for the world to buy Australian technology as there’s little being built that the world wants or needs.

    With the nation’s advantages in agriculture and mining – not to mention solar power – Australia should be leading in technologies that exploit these advantages but instead the nation is a net technology importer in all three of those sectors.

    To be fair to Australian industrialists, they responded rationally to government policies that favour property and share speculation over productive investment. Coupled with the drive to create duopolies in almost every sector of the Aussie economy, it didn’t make sense to invest when they could exploit domestic markets rather than invest in new technologies.

    Becoming high cost economies

    For nations moving up the value chain such as China, Thailand and Brazil; Australia’s failure to develop high tech manufacturing and inability in adapting to being a high cost economy is a powerful lesson in the importance of framing sensible long term economic policies.

    The Australian Productivity Commission report illustrates how the motor industry does have a role in helping countries move into being industrial powerhouses, but once a nation becomes a high cost economy it takes more than dumb subsidies to maintain a competitive advantage.

    Germany and the US illustrate this, and the fact both countries’ motor industries are running at greater than 80% capacity shows how their automotive sectors are evolving. It’s no co-incidence that electric car manufacturer Tesla Motor’s plant in Fremont, California was a former GM-Toyota joint venture factory.

    As motor vehicles become increasingly clever so too are their manufacturers; unless car builders and governments are prepared to invest in the brains of their workers and modern technology then they have little future in the 21st Century.

    For nations, the question is whether the Twentieth Century model of building a car industry is relevant in this century. It may well be that other industries will drive the successful economies of the next hundred years.

    Similar posts:

  • Finding the smart money

    Finding the smart money

    Around the world startup communities are working to connect with local investors, in Sydney and London two groups are showing how it is done.

    “We’re looking at turning idle money into start money,” is the aim of Sydney AngelEd says one of its founders, Ian Gardner.

    Fitting startup companies’ capital needs into the established criteria of investment managers is an ongoing problem that AngelEd’s founders want to resolve. “We see startups becoming an asset class,” says Gardiner.

    AngelEd, to be held on November 7, aims to educate high wealth investors and asset managers on understand the risk, benefits and hype around angel investment, particularly in tech companies.

    The global search for funds

    Startups around the world are struggling to engage with investors – in London, the local tech community has set up City Meets Tech to introduce British investors to high growth companies.

    London should have an advantage in this field given its leading role in the global finance industry, however the challenge for the tech community is to find financiers who are prepared to accept higher levels of risk than mainstream investments.

    “The City is generally risk adverse and doesn’t understand tech and tech start-ups,” says the City Meets Tech website, “though really it’s about understanding the business and managing risk though unfortunately innovation requires at least some risk.”

    Australia’s trillion dollar superannuation system should similarly give Sydney an opportunity that to become a global centre however it suffers from a similar, if not worse, conservative investment culture to London’s.

    Turning Sydney into a global finance centre has been an objective successive state and Federal governments for twenty years but the sleepy, comfortable and risk averse culture of Australian fund managers offers little to attract foreign investors or companies.

    Much of Australia’s is problem is the insular nature of local fund managers with all but a tiny part of the nation’s retirement savings being put into the top local stocks, listed property funds or domestic infrastructure projects that are notable for their lousy returns and extortionate management fees.

    Breaking that mentality is going to be the key to both AngelEd and the Sydney’s success as a financial centre.’

    Competing with the world

    While London and Sydney are struggling with the challenges of encouraging investors into the high growth sectors, cities like Singapore and New York are developing investor communities that are attracting entrepreneurs to their cities.

    Many governments dream of being the next Silicon Valley and while it isn’t likely anyone can recreate the circumstances that led to Northern California becoming the computer industry’s world centre , a vibrant and accessible capital market will be necessary for any place hoping to be a global cnetre.

    For Sydney and London, the success of initiatives like AngelEd and City Meets Tech may be critical for both centres’ future in the global digital economy.

    Similar posts:

  • An expensive place to do business

    An expensive place to do business

    Job search site Staff.com has an infographic showing the cost of setting up a startup business in selected cities around the world.

    Staff.com founder Rob Dawson looked at the cost of hiring two developers and one designer and paying rent on an office in eight cities around the world.

    Of the six Zurich came in the most expensive followed by Sydney, New York, San Francisco, London and Paris. Manila and Mumbai were obviously the cheapest.

    What Does It Cost to Run a Startup? Infographic
    Staff.com – Connecting Great Companies with Global Talent

    While the wages are the headline in this admittedly unscientific survey, the rents are a factor worth examining. If we arrange those cities by rents, then London jumps to the highest spot while Sydney remains second.

    Cost of renting in each city

    London 63,984
    Sydney 47,616
    New York 45,600
    Paris 38,400
    Zurich 36,000
    Mumbai 29,184
    San Francisco 22,080
    Manila 9,984

     

    This table illustrates a number of things; that Mumbai is a very uncompetitive location by Indian standards, being an app developer with a London startup is a miserable existence and that Australia is a very expensive place to do business.

    Last week at The Hub Sydney discussing the global workforce with O-Desk’s Matt Cooper, expatriate Aussie and founder of The Fetch Kate Kendall emphasised the high cost of doing business in Australia.

    “You don’t realise how expensive Australia has become until you get off the plane,” said Kate who pointed out the burden of massive mortgages mean labour rates have to be high so people can afford to meet their bank repayments.

    I’ve argued in the past that those high property prices are a form of economic cholesterol that sap Australia’s economic strength and these discussion illustrate that point.

    The bizarre thing is that Australian property prices are expected to go higher and, most worrying of all, the consensus among mainstream economists and business writers is that current levels are not overpriced at all.

    If we accept that the current high property prices are the long term normal for Australia, then the Aussie economy has a major adjustment to make.

    The problem for any industry that is internationally exposed, which is almost the entire service economy, is that Australian producers are hopelessly uncompetitive at current wage and cost levels.

    For startups the question is what value are they actually getting from being based in Australia and that is a question being asked by many businesses.

    Those deciding to stay in Australia are going to have to figure out how they can deliver high quality value from a cost base equal to Switzerland’s.

    At present most Aussie businesses are not prepared to deal with the problem and it’s a question that’s going to be faced by the nation’s workers, retirees and governments.

    Similar posts: