Tag: venture capital

  • Venture capital’s false jackpot

    Venture capital’s false jackpot

    When a business run by a 22 year old raises 25 million dollars it certainly gets attention and Crinkle’s successful seed funding has provoked plenty of commentary.

    Particularly notable are stories like the gush piece from the New Yorker magazine calling the fund raising “a $25 million jackpot.” Reading those, those, you’d think Crinkle’s Lucas Duplan had won the lottery.

    The truth is, getting a fat cheque from investors is only the beginning of the business journey; the real work starts when you have a board and shareholders to answer to.

    Where the real jackpot lies is in selling the business to a greater fool and the story of Bebo founder Michael Birch is a good example.

    Bebo was bought by AOL, probably the greatest greater idiot buyer of all, in 2008 for $850 million. Five yearrs later Birch has bought it back for one million and promises to ‘reinvent” the social media service.

    While Birch didn’t get all the $850 million AOL spent on Bebo, he and his investors did hit the jackpot. Whether Lucas Duplan and the backers of Crinkle do is for history to tell us.

    Image courtesy of sgman through sxc.hu

    Similar posts:

  • Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

    Are Australians too risk adverse for startups?

    Last week I had coffee with Clive Mayhew who chairs the board of Sky Software, a Geelong based student management cloud service.

    Clive covered a lot of interesting aspects about Sky’s business; including the opportunities for regional startups, government support and his experiences in Silicon Valley during the dot com boom. All of which I’ll write up in more detail soon.

    One notable point Clive raised was how he struggles to get Australian staff to take equity in the business – people want cash, not shares.

    The question Clive raises is why and that question is worth exploring in more depth.

    My feeling is that it’s a cultural thing related to property – four generations of Australians have been bought up believing housing is the safest way and surest way to build wealth.

    As a consequence young Australians are steered into getting a ‘safe’ job and plunging as much money into accumulating property equity as early as possible. Just as mum and granddad did.

    Even those who don’t want to play the property game are affected as property speculation pushes up prices and rents; the landlord or bank won’t accept startup stock to pay the bills so employees need cold, hard cash to keep a roof over their heads.

    The other angle is tax and social security policies, through the 1970s and 80s various business figures used share option schemes to minimise their taxes and successive Australian governments have passed laws making it harder for businesses to offer these incentives.

    Interestingly this not only affects the Silicon Valley tech startup business model but also hurts the aspirations of Australia’s political classes to establish the country, or at least Sydney, as a global financial centre.

    Putting aside the fantasies of Australia’s suburban apparatchiks – which if successful would see the country being more like Iceland or Cyprus than Wall Street or the City Of London – it’s clear that the existing government and community attitudes toward risk are reducing the diversity of the nation’s economy.

    That the bulk of the nation’s mining and agricultural investment, let along startup funds, comes from offshore despite the trillion dollars in compulsory domestic superannuation savings is a stark example of risk aversion at all levels of Aussie society, government and business.

    For those Australian entrepreneurs prepared to take risks, the risk adverse nature of most people becomes an opportunity as it means there’s local markets which aren’t being filled.

    The problem for those local entrepreneurs is accessing capital and that remains the biggest barrier for all small Australian businesses.

    How this works out in the next few decades will be interesting, it’s hard not to think though that Australians are going to have to be weaned off their property addiction – whether this takes a harsh recession, retired baby boomers selling down their holdings or government action remains to be seen.

    In the meantime, don’t base your business plan on staff taking equity as part of their employment package.

    Similar posts:

  • Silicon Valley and the virtues of going private

    Silicon Valley and the virtues of going private

    Last week there were a pair of interesting stories about the tech industry’s investment models.

    The biggest story was the rumours that PC manufacturer Dell may go back to being a private company and the other was Survey Monkey’s raising of $800 million through debt and private capital.

    Not your usual VC play

    Polling company Survey Monkey’s capital raising is notable because it’s very different to the standard VC equity models used by Silicon Valley companies of this size.

    Adding to the unusual nature of Survey Monkey’s behaviour is the declaration that they have no intention of becoming a public company. By ruling out an obvious way for investors to cash out of the business, they are making a clear statement that those putting money into the venture are doing so for the long term.

    That Survey Monkey is also taking on debt indicates management believe they are going to have the cash flow to service payments. Not playing to the Greater Fool business model makes the online polling company very different to most of its contemporaries in Silicon Valley.

    Dell going private

    Survey Monkey’s $800 million is dwarfed by Dell’s market cap of 22 billion dollars so the talk of the PC manufacturer buying out its stock market shareholders and becoming a private company is big news indeed.

    The New York Times Dealbook has a close look at the of the idea of taking Dell private and comes to the conclusion it’s not likely to happen.

    While there are challenges, there is merit to the idea. Richard Branson delisted Virgin from the London Stock Market in 1988 after becoming frustrated with the short term objectives of his shareholders and there’s a possibility of Michael Dell may feel the same way.

    For Dell, the challenge lies in moving away from the commodity PC sector. The Dell Hell debacle showed the company’s management has struggled with the realities of the low margin computer market and things aren’t getting better.

    Dell themselves are steadily moving away from PCs with bigger investments in services and other computer hardware sectors.

    Project Ophelia, a USB stick sized computer running Google’s Android operating system was one of Dell’s announcements at the Consumer Electronics Show and could mark where the company is going in the post-PC environment.

    Given portable and desktop PCs represent over half of Dell’s income moving away from those markets is going to be a major change in direction for the company.

    A change is though what the company needs with revenues down 11% on last year which saw profits nearly halved.

    Whether going private or staying public will allow Dell to recover its profitability remains to been seen, but management could probably do without the distraction of answering to stock markets while dealing with a complex, challenging task.

    Both Dell and Survey Monkey are showing that there isn’t one path to raising funds for technology companies, in fact there’s plenty of businesses raising money privately without the razzamatazz of high profile venture capital investments.

    It may well be though that we’re seeing private companies coming back into fashion as individual investors see the advantages in businesses with good cash flows rather then the hyped loss leaders which have dominated Silicon Valley’s headlines.

    Image of Wall Street courtesy of Linder6580 on SXC.HU

     

    Similar posts:

  • Disrupting the disrupters

    Disrupting the disrupters

    Two days ago, iconic venture capital investor Fred Wilson, wrote about the changing nature of the tech industry’s VC investments.

    Fred puts the changes down to three factors; maturing markets where big players increasingly dominate, the move to mobile which Cristina Cordova examines in more detail and the shift in focus from the consumer market to the enterprise sector.

    The last factor bears more examination as consumer and enterprise are very different and there’s no guarantee that businesses built around thousands of people downloading apps or accessing websites can pivot into selling into corporations and government agencies.

    Probably the biggest problem is the consumer or small business freemium model doesn’t cut it in the enterprises who are prepared to pay big sums for highly reliable and secure services.

    Similarly the enterprise model of fat sales commissions paid for by big implementation costs and expensive support contracts doesn’t quite fly either for these start up business. There’s also a good argument that high margin enterprise model is doomed anyway as cloud services displace costly in-house installations.

    In the transition from consumer to enterprise is difficult and most companies have struggled to make the jump, even Google Docs has been a hard sell into the corporate sector.

    At the enterprise end, cloud services are cutting margins as IBM and Oracle are finding. Both companies are moving across to cloud products and now a lot of salespeople and consultants in those organisations are looking at a substantial drop in their standards of living.

    More importantly for the startup and VC communities, the “greater fool” model doesn’t work in the enterprise space. Hyping a business which has barely made a cent in revenue but does have a million users is very different to building a stable corporate platform.

    It may well be the move to the enterprise by Silicon Valley is because the consumer model has run out of “greater fools” who’ll buy overhyped photo sharing apps or social media platforms of dubious value.

    This change in investment behaviour also has lessons for governments trying to copy Silicon Valley. The puck moves fast in the investment community while governments, by definition, are slow.

    By the time governments have setup their programs, the markets have moved on and many of the hot technologies of two years prior are now old hat. This is exactly what we’re seeing in the apps world.

    We often hear about technology causing disruption, often though we forget that those disruptive technologies can be ephemeral as they are disrupted themselves.

    As these industries evolve, we’ll see how well the disrupters deal with being disrupted.

    Similar posts:

  • Billion Dollar Babes

    Billion Dollar Babes

    “It changed everything. It changed the game for a lot of us and you know it made a lot of people feel very anxious and sort of compare their own success.”

    Lisa Bettany, the founder of Camera Plus lamented how Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of photo app Instagram purchase changed the start up community on Australian current affairs program Foreign Correspondent.

    In the program  Foreign Correspondent also spoke to Australian and Italian startup founders looking to make it in Silicon Valley. On being asked what they hoped their business was worth they all had the same answer – a billion dollars.

    There’s no doubt Jindou Lee’s Happy Inspector home inspection app or the Timbuktu kids’ story website are great products and should be successful business. But is business success only measured by a billion dollar exit?

    In Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon every child is above average, it seems in Silicon Valley every successful business is worth a billion dollars.

    Every founder in the current app or web 2.0 craze says “it’s not about the money, it’s about changing the world” yet scratch them and they are all on the lookout for the greater fool buying them out for an improbable sum.

    One could say that a billion dollar cheque does change the world of the person cashing the thing although exactly how a iPhone photo app changes the world may escape some of us.

    At the same time the Foreign Correspondent story was being aired the founder of Y Combinator – Silicon Valley’s most successful accelerator ‘s founder – warned the heat is now out of the market after Facebook’s market flop.

    Paul Graham was elaborating on a letter he wrote three months earlier where he said, “If you haven’t raised money yet, lower your expectations for fundraising.”

    If the billion dollar valuations are going out of the startup mentality then it might be better for all of us. It might mean our youngest, best and brightest really are focused more on building things that will change the world rather than buying mega-yachts for themselves and their VC investors.

    Similar posts: