Category: Investment

Bubble values

What Facebook tells us about the new tech bubble in Silicon Valley

The argument continues about Facebook’s purchase of photo sharing site Instagram.

One side claims a billion dollars for a business with barely any revenue and 13 employees is clear evidence of a bubble while the other side say its a strategic purchase that is only 1% of Facebook’s estimated $100 billion market value.

The latter argument is deeply flawed, comparing the purchase price against the value of other assets is always risky – particularly in a market where those underlying assets are being valued at the same inflated rates.

We could think of it in terms of a Dutch farmer in early 1637 claiming that paying a thousand Florins for a tulip is fine when he has a warehouse containing hundreds of them.

In reality, that farmer during the Dutch Tulip mania of the 17th Century held contracts for delivery; just as modern day investors held Collateral Debt Obligations.

Measuring value against other inflated assets is always dangerous and only fuels a bubble.

A much more concerning way of judging the wisdom of Facebook’s investment is against profit and revenue.

If we compare the purchase of Instagram against Facebook’s revenue, then the investment has cost them three months income.

Should we compare the acquisition against profit, Instagram has cost Facebook five years of profit at current rates.

Both of those numbers are very high and it indicates how big a gamble the Instagram acquisition is for Facebook.

It can be argued there is a lot of blue sky ahead for Facebook and that future profits and revenues will justify the Instagram purchase.

There’s also a very compelling argument that Facebook has to get into mobile services and Instagram does that.

Whether Instagram is worth three months income or five years profit to Facebook remains to be seen, but we should have no doubt it indicates we are well into Tech Boom 2.0.

Similar posts:

Cargo cults and your business

Do you think the government, China or big business is going to save you?

“We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

“Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

“China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

“Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

“I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons

Similar posts:

Distorted priorities

How government subsidies distort industries like film, aviation and motor manufacturing

Every year the bureaucrats of the world’s movie production industry make their way to the Locations Show where governments compete to attract movie producers to their states with fat subsidies.

This year, the preparations for the Locations Show conference are overshadowed by the US government’s struggling with continued subsidies to the Export Import Bank, an organisation going by the wonderfully Soviet name of the ExIm Bank.

While ExIm and screen subisidies aren’t directly linked in the US – the bank being a Federally funded body that finances American manufacturing sales to foreign market while state governments compete for productions – both though illustrate the zero sum game of corporate welfare that leaves citizens poorer in the process.

Delta Airline’s law suit over Exim subsidies to Boeing gives us a real life illustration of how business loses in these battles for government largess.

When Delta Airlines goes to buy or lease a Boeing 777, they have to find funds at a commercial rate of interest. Air India on the other hand gets a subsidised rate courtesy of ExIm bank.

However if Delta chooses to buy an Airbus A330, European governments will offer similar subsidies to the American carrier.

So the subsidy system actually encourages American carriers to buys European jets rather than the US products. Nice work.

This distortion is something we see too in film subsidies, as government funds are siphoned off to support large corporate movie productions.

Nowhere is this truer than in Louisiana where the state embarked in 2009 to capture the so-called “runaway production” market of footloose movie projects that shop around the world for the most lucrative subsidies.

This has worked, with Louisiana based movie production expected to total 1.4 billion dollars in 2011 on the back of $180 million in subsidies.

One of the productions Louisiana grabbed in 2010 was The Green Lantern which came as a surprise to the government of the Australian state of New South Wales who thought Sydney had secured the project.

The Green Lantern loss was the nadir for the Australian film industry that ten years earlier had been overwhelmed with productions like The Matrix Trilogy.

At the time of the Green Lantern loss the industry appeared to be in its death throes, crippled by a high Australian dollar and disadvantaged by relatively lower government subsidies.

You’d have thought that riches to rags story had taught Australian politicians that dumb subsidies don’t work and may have actually damaged the local film industry more than it helped.

Unfortunately not.

Last week the Australian Federal government announced $13 million in support for production of Wolverine. The Prime Minister’s office gushed;

To attract The Wolverine to Australia, the Gillard Government granted the producers a one-off payment of $12.8 million which will result in over $80 million of investment in Australia and create more than 2000 jobs.

The payment effectively provided The Wolverine a one-off investment package equivalent to an increase in the existing Location Offset to 30 per cent.

Without this effective tax offset incentive, the producers of The Wolverine would not have chosen Australia as the location.

In the 1950s, it made sense to invest in the industries of the future such as aviation, movie and car manufacturing industries.

Unfortunately for our politicians in Washington, Canberra, Sydney and Baton Rouge, we don’t live in the 1950s.

Similar posts:

It’s all in the timing

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

This morning I sat in on a corporate breakfast and heard a well known presenter talk about social media for business owners and managers.

The advice was terrible and what was valid could have come from a 2008 book on business social media marketing.

But the room loved it and obviously the client – a major bank – thinks the speaker’s work is worthwhile. He has a market while many of us who’ve been covering this field for a decade don’t.

Timing is everything in business. Earlier this week stories went around the Internet about how Microsoft could have invented the first smart phone.

Microsoft could well have done it, they tried hard enough with Windows CE devices through the late 1990s and there was also the Apple Newton and the Palm Pilot.

While all these companies could have developed the smartphone in the 1990s it wouldn’t have mattered as neither the infrastructure or the market were ready for it.

Had Microsoft released the smartphone in the mid 199os it would have been useless on the analogue and first generation GSM cellphone networks of the time.

Customers were barely using the web on their personal computers, let alone on their mobile phones, so the smartphone would have been useless and unwanted.

Ten years later things had changed with 3G networks and real consumer demand so Apple seized the gap in the marketplace left by Motorola, Nokia and the other phone manufacturers with the iPhone and now own the market.

Apple weren’t the first to market with a smartphone, just as Microsoft weren’t the first with a Windows-style operating system and Facebook weren’t the first social media platform.

Those who were first to the market stood by while upstarts stole the market they built.

Plenty of people have gone broke when their perfectly correct investment strategies have been mistimed – “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” is often proved true.

That’s the same with the speaker this morning; he’s not the first to discover social media’s business benefits but his timing is impeccable.

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

Similar posts:

Hubris and risk

Technology brings benefits and risks, we need to understand both

Today is the centenary of the Titanic’s tragic sinking. In many ways, the RMS Titanic described the 20th Century conundrum; a blind faith in technology coupled with a struggle to deal with the consequences of those innovations.

It’s worthwhile reflecting on the hubris of those who believed their technology made a ship unsinkable, or those who believed their shipyards would never close and – probably most relevant today – those who believe the sun never sets on their empire.

Technology can liberate our lives which is shown by the fact the average American, European or Australian lives far longer and better than even kings did two centuries ago. But we should never assume these improvements don’t come at a real cost to ourselves, the environment or the ways of life we take for granted today.

Similar posts:

Rivers of gold

Can there be a downside to Google’s massive profits?

Google’s announcement that their revenues have increased by 24% over the last year shows the search engine juggernaut keeps rolling on.

It’s tempting to think that Google is untouchable and that’s certainly how it appears when you’re on track to earn forty billion dollars a year and book close to 40% of that income as profits.

On the same day, Sony announced a massive restructure including with 10,000 redundancies and the company’s CEO, Kazuo Hirai, spoke of a sense of urgency to address the once dominant corporation’s drift into irrelevance.

Twenty years the thought of Sony – one of the world’s innovators in consumer electronics – would be wallowing in the wake of companies like Apple and unknown upstarts like Google was unthinkable.

Fortunes are won and quickly lost in a time of great change and this is something we should keep in mind about Google when we look at their rivers of gold.

“Rivers Of Gold” was a term coined to describe the advertising riches of the newspaper industry in the 1980’s. Google’s online advertising is partly responsible for destroying that business.

Today Google is a search engine business that makes its money from the advertising that deserted print media and went online.

It may be that manufacturing mobile phones, running “identity services” disguised as social media platforms or augmented reality spectacles are the future of Google but right now they it’s search and advertising that pays the bills and books the massive profits.

The challenge for Google is not to lose sight of its current core business while building the future rivers of gold.

If Google’s leaders can’t manage this, then they risk following the newspaper industry that they themselves disrupted.

Similar posts:

Tracking the end of the consumer society

One statistic illustrates how economies are changing

I’m currently researching a presentation about the retail industry.

One of the things that leaps out when researching consumer behaviour is the savings rate.

For twenty-five years from the early 1980s to mid 2000s, the savings rate collapsed in Western economies; below are the US and Australian rates.

The US Personal savings rate shows the rise of consumerism
US Savings rates 1950 to 2020 – St Louis Federal Reserve
How did the Australian savings rate fall during the consumer boom
Australian Savings Rates 1980 to 2012 – Reserve Bank of Australia

 

The graphs show the same thing; households spent their savings over the 25 years which drove the consumer economy. It’s no accident that period was a good time to be a retailer.

Being on a deadline, I don’t have time to analyse these number further right now, but one thing is clear; most of the consumer boom from the Reagan Years onwards – or the equivalent from Maggie Thatcher or Paul Keating – was driven by households reducing their savings.

That couldn’t last and didn’t. Businesses and governments that are basing their decisions on what worked through the 1980s and 90s are going to struggle in the next decade.

Looking at these figures raises another suspicion – that graphs showing non-real estate investment by businesses and government would show similar declines over the 1980-2005 period.

It might be that golden period of what appeared to economic success was just us living off society’s collective savings.

Similar posts: