Tag: business

The victims of unicorns

A highly valued business is not good news for all shareholders, particularly employees who’ve taken equity.

It’s not all good news when a tech company becomes a unicorn reports the New York Times as it often means employees and other ordinary stockholders may be diluted out by later investors holding preferential shares to secure their big bets.

The danger with these high private valuations is the later investors whose big cheques created the unicorn mythology insist upon preferential shares to protect their stake. Should the company go public or be sold for less than the valuation then it’s the common stock holders who take the greatest hit.

Good Technology’s sale to BlackBerry is the example cited in the New York Times’ story. The company’s last round of funding valued the business at $1.1 billion but it’s eventual exit was less than half of that.

As a consequence, the common stockholders lost 90% of their wealth in the company while executives and late stage investors came out with only a slight dip in the preferred shares valuation. The CEO walked away with nearly six million dollars.

With the last two years investment mania and the clear topping of the market, situations like Good’s are now becoming common. The New York Times points this out in the story.

The odds that the unicorns will all reap riches if they are sold or go public are slim. Over the past five years, at least 22 companies backed by venture capital sold for the same amount as or less than what they had raised from investors

For employees in these highly valued startups, those valuations and the risk of losing most of your own equity is a serious concern. Analyst firm CB Insights flagged earlier this week an exodus of talent from overvalued firms with dubious prospects is a great opportunity for the top tier companies.

While the headline numbers for unicorns are impressive, the reality for employees, founders and early stage investors is an overvaluation is a dangerous place to be.

Similar posts:

When startup growth pains prove fatal

The startup investment model can work against building a sustainable business

One of the most dangerous things for a startup business is trying to grow too quickly.  In his blog, Jun Loayza describes how RewardMe, one of the startups he was involved in, failed after it tried to scale to fast.

In his list of factors that led to RewardMe’s demise Loayza cites an undue focus on customer acquisition, however this is a fundamental part of the current Silicon Valley greater fool model.

As the exit strategy is to sell the business, whether it’s to a trade buyer or through an IPO,  the aim is to maximise the value of the operation ahead of that sale. Boosting the numbers of users is a key task for management.

Loayza says in retrospect he would have liked to focus on product development rather than user acquisition, but that’s a luxury not available when you’ve taken venture capital funding.

Similar posts:

Building a European Silicon Valley

Europe’s development of an equivalent to Silicon Valley faces many hurdles

The World Economic Forum asks can Europe build its own Silicon Valley?

It seems the answer lies in money, investors’ money to be precise, with a lack of VC funds to finance emerging businesses and a lack of acquisition hungry corporates providing high profile experts argues the WEF piece’s author, Keith Breene.

That appears to be a strong argument although there’s still some strong contenders for European tech hubs with the WEF identifying Munich, Paris and London as being major centres.

London’s claims are reinforced by the city’s strength in financial technology with KPMG nominating 18 of the world’s top 50 fintech startups being based in the British capital.

Interestingly, the Belgium town of Leuven which has styled itself as a centre for 3D printing and beer features on the WEF list of European startup hubs as well.

While it’s unlikely Europe can create a ‘Silicon Valley’ – even the post Cold War US would struggle to do so today – the presence of major centres like London and specialist hubs like Leuven indicates another important aspect of creating a global centre, that of having an existing base of businesses and skills.

That skillbase isn’t built up overnight, it’s a decades long process of commitment from industry, investors and governments and often as much the result of a series of happy accidents rather than deliberate planning.

It may well be the question of Europe creating a Silicon Valley isn’t really relevant with the bigger issue being how the continent’s cities and nations put in the conditions to develop long term industrial hubs. Trying to ape today’s successes for a project that will take decades to come to fruition could be a big mistake.

Similar posts:

How banks will survive the fintech onslaught

Fintech startups threaten to disrupt the banking system but the banks are well placed to survive and prosper

Earlier this week the Financial Times reported how the eleven biggest North American and European banks had shed 100,000 jobs this year, so it when I was asked to do a segment on the future of banking for radio station ABC666 in Canberra I was more than delighted.

The ABC producer’s interest had been piqued by an Ovum research paper detailing the IT spending of banks and their increasing focus on security.

Rethinking payments

In Ovum’s view much of the banking industry’s security  comes from the diverse range of payment options coming onto the marketplace. Another factor in the increased spend are the US credit cards moving to contactless payments.

Certainly the increased focus on payments security is being driven by the range of new devices with smartphones, wearable technologies and the Internet of Things opening up a whole new range of commercial channels. This is something driving the development of services like Apple’s and Google’s payment system and part of a wider battle over who controls those channels.

Underpinning much of the security focus is the interest in blockchain technologies which move the authentication records off central ledgers – historically one of the core functions of banking – onto a distributed network of databases.

Core challenges

That shift in record keeping is just one of changes affected the banking industry’s core functions, crowd funding and peer to peer lending threaten to displace banks from being the main providers of business capital, one of the fundamental reasons for the banking sectors existence.

It should be noted though the banks have largely stepped away from being the providers of small business capital over recent decades as the ill conceived ‘reforms’ of the 1980s and 90s saw the finance sector being more focused on housing lending and doing mega M&A deals with the big end of town.

The Financial Times report notes a decline in M&A deals is one of the drivers for the staff lay offs at the major banks, it’s notable that technology is changing that business function as much of the due diligence can be better done by artificial intelligence and algorithms rather than highly paid corporate lawyers and bankers.

Where have the bankers gone?

As the banks lay off senior staff, it’s notable many are finding their way to fintech companies. The Wall Street Journal however describes the relationship between incumbent banks and their would be disrupters as far more complex than it seems.

Increasingly banks are buying or taking stakes in promising startups along with establishing their own investment arms and running hackathons to identify potential disruptors. Many in the banking industry are quite aware of the changes happening.

That the banks are adopting the new technologies and identifying the threats shouldn’t be surprising, over the past fifty years the sector has been adept at applying technology from batch processing on mainframe computers through to deploying Automatic Teller Machines and rolling out credit cards to improve their business operations. Banking is one sector that’s proved itself fast to identify and adopt technological changes.

Are the banks going away?

So with fintech startups snapping at their heels, is it likely today’s banks are heading for extinction? Probably not suggests the CEO of fintech startup Currency Cloud, Mike Laven who describes such talk as being part of the “Level 39 bubble”, referring to the financial services startup hub based in London’s Canary Wharf.

Laven’s view is some banks will evolve while others won’t do so well and historically that’s what we’ve seen with other technological shifts – some of the incumbents adapt and reinvent themselves while others are not so adept and wither away.

Some of the bigger threats to banking may be social and economic change. Today’s rising of interest rates by the US Federal Reserve may mark the end of the last decade’s ‘free money’ mentality that’s been so profitable for them in recent times. The end of the consumerist era also challenges those financial institutions basing their business models on a never ending growth of consumer spending and household debt.

Almost certainly the banking industry is not going to vanish, however it is going to be a very different – most definitely a much leaner – beast in a few years time. What is certain though is the days of banks as we’ve known them in the second half of the Twentieth Century are undergoing dramatic change in the face of technological and social change.

Similar posts:

Opening the chequebook. Can you buy a Silicon Valley?

In subsidising tech businesses, the Victorian government is doomed to fail. However at least they are trying unlike their Sydney counterparts.

How do you build an industrial hub like Silicon Valley? Many cities and regions have tried various tactics, from demolishing entire suburbs to attract corporate headquarters through to spending millions on enticing film productions and countless examples of setting up Digital Hubs.

An interesting experiment is happening at the moment in the Australian city of Melbourne where the Victorian state government is spending millions on subsidies to businesses, government enterprises and academic research centres to set up in the town.

One of the Victorian government’s most surprising moves was to poach Sydney’s Sydstart startup conference for a million dollars. Naturally the event will have to be renamed and there’s no word on who will pay for the branding consultant’s time.

Opening the chequebook

Having an open chequebook is fine, but in the absence of a broader strategy that ties in educational, financial and other vital factors for building an industrial hub it’s hard to see how spending taxpayers’ funds on adhoc projects is going to create a sustainable local tech sector.

The National Broadband Network security office subsidy is particularly galling given it’s a payment to a Federal government owned corporation and it’s highly likely the facility would have been based in Melbourne anyway given the organisation’s Network Operating Centre is already in the city.

Added to the embarrassment of the NBN announcement are the overwrought claims of job creation. While it’s possible a total of 300 building staff might be involved in the construction, the idea the centre will employ 400 IT and telco security staff is surely stretching credibility.

The failed games industry

Sadly for Victorian taxpayers this isn’t the first time their government has tried to use their chequebook to attract high tech business. In the late 1990s a similar effort was launched to attract video game developers.

For a while this worked but ultimately the Victorian games sector declined in the face of a high Australian dollar, a shift in the economics of studio produced games and successful competition from Queensland who built their own subsidised centre on the Gold Coast by offering better incentives that those on offer in Melbourne.

Both the Queensland and Victorian efforts ultimately failed and today both states have little to show for those subsidies.

At least though the Victorian government is trying, unlike its property development and coal mining obsessed neighbours in Sydney who are in the process of selling off their Australian Technology Park hub and replacing it with a poorly articulated thought bubble of a technology precinct based out of a disused power station in a transport blackspot.

Sydney’s failure

In the process of coming up with these ideas, the New South Wales government managed to alienate the most successful of Sydney’s tech startups, Atlassian who last week floated on the NASDAQ stock market for over four billion US dollars.

One of the notable things of Atlassian’s story, and that of most other successful Australian tech startups, is how little direct government support features in their development.

That direct government support like subsidies feature so little in these company’s successes really tells us what really works for governments wanting to develop an ecosystem – providing the environment for skills, capital and distribution networks to develop.

Without a long term plan it’s hard to see how Victoria’s ‘splashing the cash’ will end up any better than previous efforts with other industries. As Silicon Valley, Israel and the UK have shown, it’s consistent long term investment in the industries and the infrastructure that allows businesses to developed that creates successful industry hubs.

Similar posts:

Atlassian and the changing tech investment mindset

Atlassian’s float may mark a change in the Silicon Valley mindset. It’s also a warning to Australian business

Last week’s successful float of software collaboration tool service Atlassian may mark a number of turning points for the tech industry, both globally and in the company’s home country of Australia.

Unlike many of the high profile unicorns which have dominated the tech industry headlines in recent times Atlassian is a real, and profitable, business with revenues of 320 million dollars that has grown at over 40% in each of the last three years.

An even greater difference to the unicorns is Atlassian has raised little in external funding, instead the company was bootstrapped from a $10,000 credit card debt as this BRW profile of the business describes.

Having a profitable, debt free business not beholden to a small army of investors is distinctly different to the Silicon Valley greater fool model hoping for cashed up sucker to buy their unprofitable, but well publicised, operation out. In fact it appears the greater fools themselves are dropping out of the market.

Atlassian’s float may well be the marker that investors are looking for more substance in tech companies than just the promise of millions of eyeballs.

For Aussies the lessons are sharp, Atlassian shifting its corporate functions to the UK last year and now listing on the US stock is a sharp reminder of just how out of touch with the technology sector Australian industry has become.

Had Atlassian listed on the Australian Securities Exchange at the same capitalisation, it would have been the market’s 38th biggest company sitting between two property companies and one of the few technology listings on the board.

On the ASX Atlassian would be one of a handful of technology businesses on the banking, mining and property dominated Australian exchange. It was that dominance of old world businesses and local investors’ lack of understanding of technology stocks that saw the company’s co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes long maintain that Atlassian would never be listed in Australia.

Another weakness for the Australian markets are local investors’ obsession over yield with businesses large and small paying out dividends at a far greater rate than global equivalents. This makes it hard to retain earnings and invest in new markets and R&D. Basically an Amazon could never exist in Australia.

For companies looking at following Atlassian’s footsteps the lesson is clear – the Bay Area startup model of chasing investor funding with the hope of finding a greater fool isn’t necessarily the best way to build a business and that bootstrapping a cash flow positive business gives founders greater control and flexibility.

To Australian entrepreneurs Atlassian’s lesson is to find a worldwide problem to solve and go global immediately. A domestic market focused primarily on property, banking and mining while being obsessed with short term yield isn’t going to be hospitable for local startups.

Similar posts: