Tag: entrepreneurs

When Venture Capital meets its own disruption

Falling barriers to entry are disrupting Venture Capital investors as much as incumbent managers.

Tech industry veteran Paul Graham always offers challenging thoughts about the Silicon Valley business environment on his Y Combinator blog.

Last month’s post looks at investment trends and how the venture capital industry itself is being disrupted as startups become cheaper to fund. He also touches on a profound change in the modern business environment.

Graham’s point is Venture Capital firms are finding their equity stakes eroding as it becomes easier and cheaper for founders to fund their business, as a result VC terms are steadily becoming less demanding.

An interesting observation from Graham is how the attitude of graduates towards starting up businesses has changed.

When I graduated from college in 1986, there were essentially two options: get a job or go to grad school. Now there’s a third: start your own company. That’s a big change. In principle it was possible to start your own company in 1986 too, but it didn’t seem like a real possibility. It seemed possible to start a consulting company, or a niche product company, but it didn’t seem possible to start a company that would become big.

That isn’t true – people like Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were creating companies that were already successes by 1986 – the difference was that startup companies in the 1980s were founded by college dropouts, not graduates of Cornell or Harvard.

In the current dot com mania, it’s now acceptable for graduates of mainstream universities to look at starting up business. For this we can probably thank Sergey Brin and Larry Page for showing how graduates can create a massive success with Google.

One wonders though how long this will last, for many of the twenty and early thirty somethings taking a punt on some start ups the option of going back to work for a consulting firm is always there. Get in your late 30s or early 40s and suddenly options start running out if you haven’t hit that big home run and found a greater fool.

There’s also the risk that the current startup mania will run out of steam, right now it’s sexy but stories like 25 million dollar investments in businesses that are barely past their concept phase do indicate the current dot com boom is approaching its peak, if it isn’t there already.

Where Graham is spot on though is that the 19th and 20th Century methods of industrial organisation are evolving into something else as technology breaks down silos and conglomerates. This is something that current executives, and those at university hoping to be the next generation of managers, should keep in mind.

Similar posts:

Australia’s small business crisis

A survey on Australian family owned businesses raises some disturbing questions about the nation’s economy.

The 2013 MGI Australian Family and Private Business Survey is a disturbing document describing a sector that’s aging, pessimistic and struggling with change. It bodes poorly for what should be the powerhouse of the nation’s economy.

Having been conducted over nineteen years, the MGI survey is a very good snapshot of how the sector has evolved over the last two decades and it’s notable how owners are older and not optimistic about their prospects of selling their businesses.

Another key aspect is the changed focus of Australian family businesses; in 2003 forty percent were in manufacturing, this year its half that which probably tracks the decline of the nation’s manufacturing industries.

Most striking though is the aging of the small business community with one in three proprietors being in the 60 to 69 year old bracket, up from one in five just 3 years ago.

snapshot-of-australian-businessesThat the average age of Australian small business owners is increasing shouldn’t be surprising given the nation’s increasing obsession with property. As home prices become more expensive, it becomes more difficult for younger people to pay off their mortgages or risk their equity on building a business.

Probably the most heart breaking comment from the report is that over half of Australia’s small business owners don’t see an immediate prospect of retiring and nearly two thirds don’t see any chance of an early exit.

58% of family business owner-managers see themselves working in the business beyond 65 years of age, with 65% indicating that their businesses are NOT exit or succession ready.

Part of the reason most Australian family businesses aren’t succession ready is that Generation X and Y buyers crippled by big mortgages simply can’t afford to pay what the older Baby Boomer and Lucky Generation proprietors need to retire upon.

It’s hard not to think that the grand 1980s corporatist vision of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating – that most Australians will work for one of two big corporations while being members of one of two big trade unions – has largely come true.

For Australia though this is not a good thing as the wealth of those corporations, along with that of the nation’s households, is largely tied into the domestic property market.

A discussion on the Macrobusiness website about New Zealand’s property obsession has a graph which illustrates both the Kiwi and Australian economies’ dependence upon house prices.

Housing-Wealth-to-disposable-incomeHousehold-Financial-Wealth-to-disposable-income

Those financial assets in the second graph include the value of businesses, and that statistic staying largely flat while housing wealth has gone up fifty percent over the last fifteen years illustrates how dependent the Aussie economy has become upon property speculation.

Property speculation can be fun, particularly when you’re watching people bash down walls on the latest reality TV home improvement show, but it isn’t the basis for a strong economy.

That Australia’s small business sector is aging and increasingly shifting to low value adding service industries is something that should be discussed more as the nation considers what its global role will be in the 21st Century.

Similar posts:

Does closed government hurt business and the economy?

Does a culture of government secrecy make it hard for innovators and entrepreneurs to flourish?

Earlier this week I interviewed Vivek Kundra, the former US Chief Information Officer and now Salesforce executive, on innovation, technology and government with some of the Australian business perspectives run as a story in Business Spectator.

Something that stood out for me from the interview were Vivek’s views on the effects of governments making both innovations and information freely available.

“Two policy decisions that transformed the future of civilisation – GPS opening and human genome project through the Bermuda Principles.”

While it’s probably too early to draw conclusions on how the opening of the human genome data will change business, it’s certainly true the Global Positioning System has allowed whole new industries to evolve and it’s an important lesson on making technology available to the masses.

The Global Positioning System was, like the internet, a US military technology developed during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

After Korean Airlines flight 007 was shot down by Soviet fighters in 1983, President Reagan approved civilian use of the GPS – then named Navstar – to prevent similar tragedies.

Such a decision was controversial, this was military technology being given over to the general population which could be used by enemy forces as well as airlines and truck drivers.

No doubt if the GPS technology was developed in the UK or Australia, there would have been demands to monetize the service. It almost certainly would have been sold off to a merchant bank that would have charged for the service and stunted its adoption.

By making GPS freely available, the US gained a competitive advantage which maintains the nation’s technological and economic lead over the rest of the world.

This openness isn’t just an advantage for technology companies. While US governments are no means perfect, the relatively open nature of local, state and Federal administrations is an advantage for the United States economy and society. As Vivek says,

Making data available provides three concrete functions; it allows citizens to fight corruption, it allows you to build the next billion dollar companies and it transforms government functions by breaking down silos.

When the default position of government is to classify everything as secret or ‘commercial-in-confidence’, there’s little chance of an entrepreneurial culture growing in that society – instead you have a business culture that favours connected insiders who can trade off their privileged contacts within government.

A culture of closed government reflects the business culture of a society and the reluctance of both the private and public sectors to openly share knowledge is why countries like Britain and Australia will struggle to emulate the United States.

Similar posts:

Australia’s entrepreneurial opportunity

Can Australia make the most of it’s entrepreneurial desires?

The recent PwC report Startup Economy – How to support tech startups and support Australian innovation focused, naturally enough, on the barriers to developing a Silicon Valley like business community in Australia.

Unlike most coverage of the report, The Economist raised an interesting point from the findings, that entrepreneurial Australians are far more likely to start up businesses than many other nations.

PWC-international-entrepreneur-funnell

On one level this isn’t suprising as starting a business in Australia is easy compared to many other countries with the World Bank’s Doing Business survey rating the country second after New Zealand for the ease of setting up an enterprise.

Interestingly though, the number of Australians setting up their own businesses is falling reports Smart Company, citing the Productivity Commission’s Forms of Work in Australia report.

The Productivity Commission speculates this might be because the mining boom is encouraging workers to take resource contracts rather than set up their own businesses.

No doubt there’s some truth there, as much of the nation’s investment has been directed into the mines and associated infrastructure in recent years however there’s probably some more mundane reasons.

Top of the list would be the nation’s property obsession; it’s difficult to service a massive mortgage while running your own business.

Fifty years of mainly increasing property prices has groomed Australians into believing that having a steady job and a brace of investment properties is a much easier path to success than taking a risk with your own business.

Added to that is the increasing hostility towards businesses. As the nanny state grows, regulations that make it harder for business multiply, the latest example being a Sydney council that wants to charge professional dog walkers for using parks.

Overwhelmingly these petty regulations hurt those starting new businesses rather than bigger corporations.

The good news though is that people still want to start their own businesses. In an economy that’s increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, diversification is critical.

In a world that’s becoming increasing automated, we need smart startups finding ways to use the new tools and create the jobs to run them. If Australia can get its policy mix right, kick the property and nanny state addictions then it might open some great opportunities.

Similar posts:

Privileges and princelings

Many companies have developed a culture of executive privilege in an era of easy money.

A strange thing about Australian business reporting is that its often full of gossip and name dropping as any third rate scandal magazine.

In a perverse way, treating business executives like the Kardashians gives the average mug punter – and shareholders – a glimpse into how these companies do business. Like this story in the Australian Financial Review;

Hamish Tyrwhitt was unaware of the latest drama unfolding within the Leighton board as he relaxed in the Qantas First Class Lounge in Sydney on Friday morning.

Indeed, the contractor’s chief executive officer was busy chatting to former Wallabies captain John Eales while waiting to board a flight to Hong Kong where he was due to close a recent deal to build the Wynn Cotai hotel resort in Macau and enjoy the Sevens rugby tournament.

The timing was not good. Tyrwhitt had only just boarded the flight when the news broke that chairman Stephen Johns and two directors had resigned. Tyrwhitt was forced to change his plans and is expected back in Sydney for a board meeting convened this weekend.

Nice work if you can get it.

A few pages further in the day’s AFR is another gem;

One July evening about four years ago, off the south coast of France between Cannes and St Tropez, two men sat in the jacuzzi on the top deck of a 116-foot Azimut motor yacht. It was about 3am and the sea was rough. The spa water was sloshing about and had given the latest round of caprioskas a distinctly bitter taste.

Dodo boss Larry Kestelman was telling his good friend, M2 Telecommunications founder Vaughan Bowen, about the challenges of growing his internet service provider business.

It’s tough doing business when the spa waters are choppy. One expects better from a seven million dollar boat.

That second article raises another point that’s often overlooked, or unmentioned, when reporting Australian business matters.

on Thursday the 14th, something unexpected happened. At 12.30pm, after no activity all morning, shares in the thinly traded Eftel started to rise sharply. By the time the market closed at 4pm, Eftel had soared 44 per cent to 39.5¢. Someone with knowledge of the deal was insider trading.

Insider trading? On the Australian Security Exchange? Somebody had better call those super-efficient regulators who were responsible for Australia cruising through the global economic crisis of 2008.

Somebody obviously wanted their own 116ft luxury yacht or corporate box at the Hong Kong Sevens.

Both of these stories illustrate the hubris and privileges of corporate Australia and its regulators.

One wonders how well equipped these organisations are for an economic reversal when their leaders are more worried about caprioskas and their spots in the first class lounge.

We may yet find out.

First class airline seat images courtesy of Pyonko on Flickr and Wikimedia.

Similar posts:

Risky business – is crowd funding too rich for investors and innovators

Do recent kickstarter failures show that crowd funding is too risky for most entrepreneurs and investors?

It’s sad when a Kickstarter project fails to meet its promises and the story of the Collusion Pen, a stylus designed for iPads, is a salutary lesson of how many people don’t understand when they buy into or set up a crowdfunding proposal.

The idea behind crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter is that artists, designers and inventors can publicise their projects, interested supporters can pledge funds in return for benefits like advanced previews, a signed book or an early version of version of the product.

For the Collusion pen, it’s the early version that’s upset supporters who’ve complained that the device is unusable in its current form.

Not getting the product when it was promised is standard for Kickstarter projects, late last year CNN Money reported how 84% of the site’s top listed ventures missed their target delivery dates.

The reason for Kickstarter’s apparent failures is that ideas are risky. Often, entrepreneurs and artists overestimate their skills and underestimate the scale of the task they’ve given themselves.

Added to this, Kickstarter is an expensive way to raise capital. When another Australian startup Moore’s Cloud went onto Kickstarter to fund their internet connected light, they found that to cover the $285,000 development costs they had to win pledges worth $700,000.

Moore’s Cloud missed their target and have gone on to raising money independently.

Apart from the those risks we set our expectations too high – we believe the first versions will be perfect out of the box and every idea will make the founder a billion.

In his article The Fake Church of Entrepreneurship, US business founder Francisco Dao discussed how much of the start up community is based up on religious beliefs about the sanctity of founders and that everyone can become rich by selling their idea to a greater fool.

The sad thing is that ideas are like armpits – most of us have a couple and almost all of them stink.

Not that people shouldn’t have a go; having a hare brained idea and making it a reality is the foundation of human progress. It’s just that most ideas don’t work out.

Making matters worse is our inability to evaluate risk; notable in the Sydney Morning Herald story are the consumer and investor protection angles.

If someone isn’t getting what they thought they had been promised, then “the government aught to do something.”

The biggest risk of all to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites is that governments will regulate them either as stores or as investments.

As investments crowdfunding projects will be hiring lawyers and bankers to draft densely worded product disclosure statements which will see ventures like Moore’s cloud having to raise a couple of million more to cover their legal costs.

Should crowdfunding be considered as a consumer issue, then projects will have be expected to deliver or face action from consumer protection agencies which would make most nonviable.

The stories of crowdfunding successes have to be considered in the same way as most artistic and entrepreneurial ventures; we hear about the winners, but we don’t hear so much about those who didn’t ‘succeed’.

While we – as consumers, investors and entrepreneurs – don’t think through those risks, we’ll be disappointed in tools like crowdsourcing which would be a shame as its a good way for some ideas to get a healthy start.

Failure image courtesy of cobrasoft on sxc.hu

Similar posts:

In it to win it – does overcompetitiveness hurt entrepreneurs?

Does the winning at all costs mentality actually hurt entrepreneurs when business isn’t a zero sum game?

I’ve written before about entrepreneur and venture capital investor Mark Suster and his writings about business are always worth reading.

His recent post pulling together writings on the DNA of an entrepreneur is interesting reading however one point jars – competitiveness.

In Steve’s view competitiveness is about winning at all costs and crushing the opposition.

That’s fine when competing for a customer, fighting over market share or pitching to the same VC investor, but business usually isn’t a zero-sum “if I win, you lose” equation.

Sometimes its about complimentary strengths. In the early days of PC Rescue I tried to partner with an old colleague who had set up a competing business.

Mark was actually a better computer tech than I was, my strengths lay more in sales and administration, had we teamed up we’d have been a good combination.

Unfortunately Mark took Suster’s view of ‘winning at all costs’ and when I foolishly referred customers to him because I was either busy or thought he could do a better job, I found he was stealing those customers.

Eventually I had to cut ties with him, and it cost him money and the chance to be part of something bigger. Mark was greedy but I’m sure he thinks he ‘won’ against me when there really wasn’t a contest.

Geeks are particularly poor at admitting they have weaknesses, in fact their lack of self understanding could be their greatest weakness of all. So drumming a ‘win at all costs’ message into their heads is almost certainly counter productive.

It may well be that this win at all costs view is damaging the mental health of many entrepreneurs, by viewing what others are doing through a prism of “I have to win” almost guarantees depression as often the life of an entrepreneur is more steps backwards than forwards.

As most reporting of startup and entrepreneurs is distorted by survivor bias, we often gloss over this latter point – in reality starting your own business, particularly one that’s under-capitalised, is hard and tough work with a high chance of failure.

That chance of failure means a ‘win at all costs’ mentality could result in a generation of mentally damaged former entrepreneurs.

Mark Suster’s views are really good on what drives the Silicon Valley model of business. We need to take care though we don’t take the wrong lessons which end up hurting our businesses, families and our own mental well-being.

Jackpot image from Henriette via SXC.HU.

Similar posts: