Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: investment

Should Australia pass a jobs act?
Last week the US President signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act into law.

The US law seeks to make funding easier for new businesses by lifting the burden of regulations like the Sarbannes Oxley Act (SOX) and various other financial rules.

One of the main planks of the reforms is it changes shareholder thresholds, for instance allowing 2,000 investors rather than 500 maximum before it has to go public, and allows companies to advertise their shares subject to certain restrictions.

Whether it achieves the stated aim of allowing new innovative businesses to raise funds or triggers a new generation of “boiler rooms” and investor fraud remains to be seen but it begs the question of should Australia pass a jobs act.

The funding crisis

There is no doubt Australia has a business funding crisis. Before the global financial crisis of 2008, it was difficult for smaller business to access finance.

In the aftermath of the GFC, it became even harder for businesses to raise funds as banks withdrew from the small business sector, increased their lending rates and tightened criteria.

While this situation has eased somewhat, partly due to the entrance of new angel and VC investment funds, financing of startup and small business is patchy and still tough.

An Australian Jobs Act would make it easier for business to raise funds and well crafted one might encourage both self managed and public superannuation funds to allocate some of their investments into the startup and innovation sectors.

A Scammer’s dream?

One of the big criticisms is that it reduces investor protections; while it restricts investors with less than $100,000 in annual income from punting more than 5% of their income, it’s quite clear in a full blown mania the Jobs Act will enable plenty of shoeshine boys and self funded retirees will do their life savings.

The question of course is how well the existing regulations protect investors or the community given the financial disastersof 2008.

Despite tough rules like SOX and the Basel Agreements, massive institutionalised fraud occurred and it’s surprising there have been no reforms in these rules given the huge and unprecedented costs of rectifying the problems.

In an Australian context, it’s clear local regulations aren’t working when thousands of investors are defrauded by their financial advisors in financial planner led scams like Westpoint. So reform is due.

While it’s clear the legislation isn’t working, it’s also clear the Australian financial planning industry doesn’t have the skills or ethics to advise clients should a local Jobs Act be passed.

Perhaps we should be accepting there is risk in investing and an Australian Jobs Act could help by simplifying business rules and improving transparency in accounts rather than bogging business and investors down in masses of unread paperwork.

Is the US experience valid?

Looking at the US Jobs Act it appears the Silicon Valley insiders are finding ways to extend their business models, whether this is successful creating new American jobs or just enriching the good folk of Sand Hill Road will pan out in the next few years.

For Australia it’s important we reform our laws to make business and innovation easier though we need to be careful we don’t ape the worst aspects of the Silicon Valley business model.

Similar posts:
April 7, 2012
You hold us harmless
Social media site Pinterest was recently caught in one of the ongoing quandaries of social media – the ownership of content.

The subject is tricky; social media sites rely on a vibrant community of users posting news and interesting things for their online friends.

Unfortunately many of things social media users post are someone else’s property, so almost every service has a boilerplate legal indemnity term like Pinterest’s.

You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.

Facebook have similar terms (clause 15.1) as do LinkedIn (clause 2.E) and Tumblr (clause 15). Interestingly, Google’s master terms of service only holds businesses liable for the company’s legal costs, not individuals.

Boilerplate terms like these are necessary to provide at least an illusion of legal protections for investors – those venture capital investors, greater fool buyers or punters jumping into the latest hot technology stock offering need a fig leaf that covers the real risk of being sued for copyright infringement by one of their users.

The risk in these terms shouldn’t be understated; by agreeing to them a user assumes the liability of any costs the service incurs from the user’s posts. Those costs don’t have to be a successful lawsuit against the service, it could be something as minor as responding to a lawyer’s nastygram or DMCA takedown notice.

Of course, none of the major social media platforms have any intention of using these indemnity terms; they know that the first time they go after a user all trust in the service will evaporate and their business collapse.

Somewhere among the thousands of social media services though there is going to be one that will pull this stunt. Strapped for cash and slapped with an outrageous claim for copyright damages, the company’s board will settle then send out their own demands to the users responsible.

Those “responsible” users – probably white, middle class folk sitting in somewhere in the US Midwest, South East England or North Island of New Zealand – will be baffled by the legal demand that requires them to file a defense somewhere obscure in California or Texas and will go to their lawyer friends.

When the lawyers tell them what it means their next step will be to their local news outlet.

The moment the story of a middle class person facing losing all their assets hits the wires is the moment the entire social media business model starts to wobble.

In many ways what the social media sites are trying to do is offset risk.

Risk though is like toothpaste. Squeeze the tube in one place and the pressure moves elsewhere.

By laying off a real risk by using legal terms the social media sites create new, even bigger risks elsewhere in their business.

The dumb thing is these terms really don’t protect the services anyway – it’s unlikely the typical social media user will have anything like the assets to cover the costs of a major copyright action by a rich, determined plaintiff.

It’s going to be interesting to see how many services still have these indemnity clauses in 12 months.

For the industry’s sake, the big players will need to have ditched these terms before that first dumb attempt to claim damages from users hits the wires.

Similar posts:
March 25, 2012
Should we be subsidising industries?
The 2012 UK “austerity” budget has one bright side with big tax breaks of the games and television industries.

Meanwhile down under, the Australian government is about to announce more massive subsidies to the local motor industry.

While protecting jobs and trying to help struggling industries is admirable, we should ask if the cost to the taxpayer and economy is worthwhile.

Squeaky wheels

“The industry has lobbied for such changes for several years” says the BBC report on the UK budget and this is one of the problems with industry specific support; that it’s the ones who complain the loudest who get the assistance.

Often the companies and industries lobbying for subsidies spend too much management time and resources duchessing ministers, public servants and key media “opinion makers” than actually listening to their customers.

The fact they have staff dedicated to lobbying efforts in itself shows where their investment priorities lie. It isn’t in building better products or delivering what their customers want.

Missing voices

It’s often lamented that the high growth and small business communities don’t receive support, this is because they are running and building their businesses rather than shmoozing journalists, public servants and politicians.

Industry support programs often end up helping established insiders or those with a talent for filling in government grant applications rather than those who genuinely need help.

The Australian film industry is a good example of this where talented film makers struggle to attract funding from government agencies while a generation of well connected, experienced form fillers keep churning out subsidised movies that no-one wants to see.

Behind the times

One of the problems with government picking industry winners is they are often well behind the times with support going to mature or fading industries; both the Australian and UK announcements illustrate this.

The UK games announcement is at least ten years behind the times; strategic investment in the games and TV industry a decade or two ago may have been a wise move, today it’s just supporting another mature sector that is struggling to adjust.

At least though the UK’s policies are somewhere near the 21st Century, the massive Australian support for the failed motor industry shows Canberra’s politicians are mired in an era somewhere Henry and Edsel Ford.

It’s worth noting one of the first moves of the incoming Australian Labor government in 2007 was to axe the Commercial Ready program that was designed to help commercialise new technologies and innovations yet motor industry support dwarf any savings from abandoning this scheme.

The investment problem

In most countries the real problem to building jobs and industries is investment. Both the UK and Australia illustrate this with their domestic investment being largely directed at the housing industries.

The two countries have taxation and social security policies that favour over-investment in property. In Australia the problem is exacerbated by a retirement saving scheme that directs domestic savings to index hugging fund managers.

Australia’s sinking of money into an industry that have been struggling for nearly forty years and currently suffering massive worldwide oversupply is one of many damning indictments on the country’s political classes squandering of the current resources boom.

Making things worse, massive subsidies to uncompetitive industries already distorts a twisted economy.

Real economic reform that encourages investment in research, development, training, innovation and entrepreneurs is tough and means losses for many in those vocal, dying industries.

For the average politician a feel good announcement giving a bucket of money to a noisy group is a much better short term investment.

The challenge, and opportunity, in the democratic world is to make the politicians aware that the economy has moved on from the times of John Major in Britain or Bob Menzies in Australia.

It may well be that industries do need, and deserve, government support although we need far more scrutiny and justification from our political leader of why certain groups get help while others do without.

Similar posts:
March 22, 2012
Insanely profitable
Apple’s announcement that they will start paying dividends to shareholders changes a number of things in Apple’s business model and those of many other businesses.

The sheer size of Apple’s cash reserves also illustrate how profitable the outsourced manufacturing model is as well the contradictary nature of special pleading by affluent corporations.

Moving a cash mountain

Not only is Apple’s business insanely profitable, but sales are growing exponentially. In the company’s conference call, CEO Tim Cook reported that 37 million iPhones sold last quarter and 55 million iPads sold in the last two years.

Apple’s CFO Peter Oppenheimer pointed out the company’s cash reserves increased $31 billion in 2011 and 2012 is on track for a similar result in 2012, leaving them plenty of money for investment along with a “warchest for strategic opportunities”.

Paying a dividend

The reluctance to pay dividends has been a feature of the US corporate for the last few decades and Apple are certainly not alone in not distributing their profits to shareholders.

Companies like Microsoft, Google and Oracle -even Yahoo! once upon a time – have been just as profitable as Apple and their efforts to shrink their cash mountains has had some perverse effect.

Many of these companies have squandered suprpluses on poorly thoughtout and badly executed buyouts of smaller businesses, this urge to avoid returning money to owner has been one of the drivers of the Silicon Valley VC Greater Fool model.

Another result of fat profits is the rise of flabby, overstaffed management ranks at some of these companies. Although this certainly isn’t the case at Apple where Steve Jobs ran a very lean machine.

The retail model

Unlike their major tech competitors Apple is a manufacturing and retail business as well. In 2012, 40 new stores are planned around the world.

This vertical control of their markets, from the beginings of the supply chain to “owning” the end customer is anathema to modern MBA thinking and probably the area that gives them the greatest competitive advantage over their hardware competitors.

Justifying Mike Daisy

In some ways this announcement justfies Mike Dasy’s discredited criticisms about Apple’s Chinese suppliers.

The reason for manufacturing these goods in places like China, India or Vietnam is the vastly cheaper cost of doing business, not just in labour rates but in reduced environmental and safety standards.

Plenty of brand name clothing, footware and fashion accessory companies make similar massive profits to Apple with their ten, twenty and sometimes hundred fold markups on their products.

Repatriating profits

One of the big changes of Apple repatriating money is that is undercuts the special pleading by these extremely profitable companies that they should have a US tax holiday so they can repatriate their riches.

It’s now clear these companies can easily afford to pay the taxes of their home countries and it’s time they started to, along with returning dividends to their shareholders.

Once again Apple have changed the way others do business, how these changes affect the way we invest and governments treat companies is going to be one of the most interesting developments over the next decade.

Similar posts:
March 20, 2012
The need for speed
I’m at the Kickstart Forum for IT journalists on the Gold Coast this weekend talking to various companies and technology thought leaders on the direction of the industry.

For the forum’s opening keynote, opposition spokesperson and former Optus telecommunications executive Paul Fletcher described his concerns about the Australian government’s National Broadband Network.

Many of Paul’s objections to the project are based on the failure of former attempts to build telecommunications networks – citing Aussat, the NextGen fibre network, OneTel and international disappointments like WorldCom and Global Crossing.

The other main concern is that no-one will use it. He cites a Parliamentary committee that where eHealth providers said their service could be adequately provided by a 512Kbit connection, a tiny fraction of the 100Mbit speed promised by the NBN.

Previous failures aren’t a good indicator of the success or otherwise of the NBN, but what’s more important is what a poor job industry’s doing in explaining how high speed Internet can help their businesses.

The big challenge for NBN advocates who believe this project is the essential infrastructure of the 21st Century, is to articulate the benefits and potential. We’re not doing a very good job at the moment.

What’s your view on how high speed Internet can help your business or community?

Similar posts:
February 27, 2012