Tag: investment

Dangerous liaisons – the risks in government support

Government investment money isn’t free or easy as a UK entrepreneur found.

“I coulda bin a contender” is the first thing that comes to mind when reading The Register’s story on how the iPhone could have been a British invention.

However the tale of British engineer Andrew Fentem and his struggles with the UK investment bureaucracy is a warning to all of those who think that government support programs are an easily solution for getting ideas to market.

Fentem’s story is a common one around the world – an inventor approaches a government agency which agrees to support the project and then bogs the entire venture down in paperwork and bureaucracy.

In some respects this is understandable as bureaucrats and politicians are deeply risk averse, which is fair when taxpayers money is involved, with the result that justifying an investment is going to be more about ticking boxes and meeting criteria rather than genuinely helping projects succeed.

During my short stint in working for a government agency every week would see at least three people contacting me about taxpayer support for their businesses.

Most of the time there was no godly reason for the government to give these folk a penny and it took the few diplomatic skills I have to politely break the news they had little prospect of getting a grant or subsidy.

Some approaches though were very good projects but usually I’d warn the inventor or entrepreneur that any support the state government would give them would come at the cost of spending hours completing irritating paper work.

My advice was that driving a cab and living on noodles for six months to raise the capital would be a better investment of their time than dealing with grey suited bureaucrats like me.

This advice didn’t always go down well, but it was better for both the taxpayer and the entrepreneur in the long run.

Well thought out government programs can do a lot of good for businesses or inventions that might not otherwise come to fruition, although many of the success stories probably have as much to do with the calibre of the public servants running the scheme as they do with the programs themselves.

In the case of Andrew Fentem and his touchscreen technology it’s almost certain that the folk at NESTA were out of their depth and far more comfortable with subsidising trips to Las Vegas for circus clowns, which in itself is a valuable lesson for governments on defining programs and supervising agencies.

Raising funds for any business or invention is a tough game anywhere in the world and assuming governments are an easy way to find money is as flawed as any other misconception about building a startup.

The moral is government money in neither free nor easy if you’re an inventor or an entrepreneur.

Similar posts:

Regional pains – what happens to communities when industries close?

Upstate New York and rural Australia may give us some clues to how regions will evolve in the 21st Century

Yesterday’s post on Chobani Yoghurt rescuing a town in Upper New York state raises some questions about what happens when a major industry leaves.

For South Edemston, the question went unanswered as Hamdi Ulukaya and Chobani saved the day, but other towns haven’t been so lucky.

Australia’s Goulburn Valley, about a hundred miles north east of Melbourne, may be about to find out as the main local fruit cannery will close down unless the state and Federal governments each contribute $25 million to an investment plan.

Closing the region’s major cannery will have dire consequences for the local economy as the industry has been a major customer for the local fruit industry. Without the cannery, many of those peach, pear and apple growers have nowhere to sell their produce.

Already farmers are bulldozing their trees and grubbing up the roots as the market works against them.

So what happens to the Goulburn Valley if the canning industry leaves? Do the orchards get turned over to goats?

There is a precedent in Australia for this, in Tasmania the ‘Apple Isle’ has seen its orchard industry steadily decline from the days of peak production in 1964.

A touching story in The Griffith Review by Moya Fyfe, the daughter a former Tasmanian apple farmer, describes when her father’s orchards were ripped up.

So in the winter of 1974, his life’s work, and that of his father, was bulldozed into windrows of gnarled stumps and roots. Acre after acre of once productive apple trees, captured in a photograph hanging on my parents’ dining room wall as picture-book hills awash with blossoms above North West Bay, were twisted and torn from the ground and left in undignified heaps to rot.

Moya’s father was given an exit package – a cash payment to find something else to do – by the state government. Something that many agricultural communities around the world have become familiar with.

The problem for Tasmanians was that there wasn’t really much else to do. At the time Moya’s farm was ripped up there was a belief the state would become an industrial powerhouse on the back of cheap hydroelectricity, but that never happened.

Tasmania’s economy continues to struggle and Moya’s article was part of a Griffith Review edition focusing on the state’s struggles.

The most pubilicised essay was a scathing analysis of the state’s culture by Professor Johnathan West, who identified the real problem for Tasmania as being a dependency mindset.

These numbers suggest that as little as a quarter to a third of Tasmanian households derive their livelihood from the genuine private sector. Of them perhaps a third gain their income from wholesale and retail trade and associated logistics, another third from residential and commercial construction and maintenance. The clients of both these groups depend largely on public-sector incomes, leaving only about 10 per cent of all households making a living from the traded private sector.

Interestingly both Johnathan West and Moya Fyfe are employed by the University of Tasmania, which probably proves the Professor’s point.

Overall Tasmania relies upon Federal government funds to survive, receiving over $1.50 in payments for ever dollar remitted in taxes; in that it joins half of Australia’s states and territories in being economically dependent on the Federal taxpayer.

That’s not a good sign for the Goulburn Valley or for the state of Victoria which increasingly is appearing to be to Australia what Spain was to the European Union circa 2007 or Miami to the US in 1927. When the Melbourne property market pops, the region could be in deep trouble.

For much of regional Australia – like disadvantaged parts of the European Union or the United States – communities have become dependent on transfers from the central government, the sustainability of that is being tested now.

It may well be that South Edmenson’s experience with Chobani illustrates the most sustainable way governments can support these regions, attracting entrepreneurs and new industries into communities that are being left behind is far better than leaving them on welfare.

Image courtesy of elcapitain through Flickr

Similar posts:

Chinese earthmovers move up the value chain

The Chinese construction equipment industry shows how the nation is moving up the value chain

After yesterday’s post on the motor industry’s relevance in the 21st Century, a related article about Chinese construction equipment appeared in The Economist.

According to CLSA – formerly Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia and itself now fully owned by Chinese investment house CITIC – the quality of Chinese construction plant is rapidly approaching that of the Japanese and US industry leaders.

The Chinese have achieved this in a short period through a combination of joint ventures and strategic takeovers and that should worry its more established competitors.

How the Chinese have moved up the value chain in construction plant is a small, but important example, of how the country is positioning itself as a higher level producer as its economy and workforce matures.

For trading partners and competitors it’s worthwhile thinking how a more affluent and higher tech China is going to affect their businesses, thinking of China as just a cheap source of low quality labour isn’t going to cut it for much longer.

Similar posts:

Finding the mythical pot of gold at the end of the crowdfunding rainbow

Raising capital through crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter is only the beginning for most businesses.

Raising capital is tough, while the Silicon Valley legend of a smart group of geeks finding wealth through fairy godfathers – aka VCs – throwing money at them may be true for a small number of outliers it isn’t the reality for most businesses.

For most businesses, even if they are lucky to find a VC or angel investor, raising that money is usually the start of the next phase of building a venture which can be even tougher.

With the recent rise of crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo and Pozible which are a lot easier to raise capital through than finding VC or angel investors, there’s been a lot more commentary on how these services are a pot of gold for artists and entrepreneurs.

Mark Pesce discussed some the challenges of Kickstarter campaigns in an interview on the Decoding the New Economy YouTube channel about funding Moore’s Cloud.

Backing Mark’s views is a post on Fast Company’s design blog discussing what happens after  a successful campaign.

In Life after Kickstarter, Jon Fawcett describes what happened after raising over $200,000 for his project Une Bobine.

Having more than met his targets, Fawcett found raising the money was only the start of the business challenges with logistics, taxes and fulfilment being hurdles his team had to overcome.

Fawcett actually had an advantage in had tied manufacturers up before launching the funding campaign; for those who haven’t, the process would be even more fraught.

As the Fast Company story concludes, the successful fund raising was only a small, albeit critical, part of getting the products to market.

Fawcett’s story is a reminder that a product’s journey doesn’t end with funding. While Kickstarter has democratized and decentralized the process of raising capital, concerns of manufacturing, shipping, and storage still retain the unglamorous grit of the real world. There’s no flashy website for setting up your supply chain. Perhaps that’s the next part of this grand process prime for disruption.

While raising capital is tough, it’s only part of the story of a successful business. Jon Fawcett story is a reminder of that.

Similar posts:

How did San Francisco become the darling of the tech scene?

How did San Francisco become the darling of the tech scene?

Regular visitors to San Francisco would notice how the city has changed in the last few years.

Companies that were setting up in Silicon Valley are now basing themselves downtown, the business community is energised and the seedier parts of the town are looking substantially spruced up.

To understand the change I interviewed Laurel Barsotti from the City and County of San Francisco as part of the Decoding the New Economy series of video clips.

Laurel is the council’s Director of Business Development and we discussed how the local government has worked with the community and business leaders to drive San Francisco’s economic growth.

The shift from Silicon Valley

A striking change in the tech industry is how the startup focus has shifted from Silicon Valley fifty miles away to downtown San Francisco. Laurel puts it down to a shift in the priorities of the sector.

“I think we benefited from a shift in the tech industry, being much more focused on design and user experience,” says Laurel.

“The people who are investing in that are people who want in San Francisco and people who want to live and work in the same city.”

“A lot of the entrepreneurs creating those companies are concerned their employees see people using their products, they want them riding the bus to and from work and see people interacting with their products.”

Changing the tax code

Like Barcelona, the Global Financial Crisis shook the city up, “with the economic downturn our whole city made jobs a top priority.”

Part of that review focused on the disadvantages of basing a business in San Francisco.

“It was bought to our attention that we were the only city in California that taxed stock options.” Laura says, “companies that wanted to go public were having to leave San Francisco to afford it.”

“We did an entire revision to our tax code which showed to investors they could count on San Francisco to be business friendly.”

Regenerating communities

Along with the problem of city taxes, the city was facing the problem of regenerating blighted neighbourhoods and the administration decided to address both problems together by offering incentives for businesses to setup in the mid-market district – I’d been warned not to call it ‘The Tenderloin.’

“We had a neighbourhood that was facing a lot of blight and we had not been able to successfully increase business and we had companies like Twitter telling us that our payroll tax was causing them problems and making it hard for them to grow in San Francisco,” Laura tells.

“So we combined those two problems and made it so a San Francisco company was able to move into a neighbourhood that needed more investment and business and it would be able to save some money while helping us improve the neighbourhood.”

The future for San Francisco

A common point when talking to city leaders and economic development agencies around the world is the focus on building a diverse economy and Laura sees that as part of the future for San Francisco.

In that vision includes manufacturing, biotechnology and tourism along with the internet based industries that are today’s investment and media darlings.

The focus though is on the city’s residents and how life can be improved for everyone, not just the business community and high tech investors.

“We are really focused on creating an economy for all,” says Laura. “We want to remain as diverse as possible.”

“Every San Franciscan, from no matter what socio-economic background, has a place that they can be.”

Similar posts:

Thorstein Heins’ brave parachute jump

Blackberry CEO Thorsten Heins leaves with a big payout and investors with a headache.

Six months ago I wondered if Blackberry CEO Thorsten Heins was the world’s bravest executive?

It turns out his bravery wasn’t rewarded as Blackberry’s brave attempt to reclaim their smartphone market share failed and now their hopes of a private equity takeover has failed with Heins announcing his resignation.

Heins is still a risk taker though with Business Insider reporting that he may have forgone up to fifty million dollars in termination payments.

Still he walks away with several million dollars, so life isn’t too hard for Thorsten.

For Blackberry though the struggle continues with the company hoping to raise a billion dollars through a convertible note issue. It would be an investor braver than Thorsten Heins who takes that offer.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Lessons in crowdfunding from an unsuccessful Kickstarter campaign

Crowdfunding is in its early days and Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce explains some of the lessons we have to learn about this new way of raising capital.

“I’d rather eat a bullet than do a Kickstarter campaign again,” says Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce in the latest Decoding The New Economy video when asked about crowdfunding his project.

Moore’s cloud is an internet of things company that focuses on lighting, “we think it’s interesting and something that expresses emotion” Mark says.

With their first project, Moore’s Cloud looked to raise $700,000 to build their first project but fell well short of their target.

Falling short lead to Mark and his team executing a classic business pivot from a static lights to Holiday, a system of intelligent fairy lights.

“We took exactly the same technology and put it into a different form factor,” said Mark. “It’s as if we took the light and unwound it.”

The failure of the Kickstarter campaign gave the Moore’s Cloud founders an education on how crowdfunding works.

Customer focused from day one

An important aspect of crowdfunding is it’s very customer focused. From day one of the campaign, the venture has to devote resources on relations with those who’ve pledged a contribution.

Most startups don’t have those resources, or the time and skills, to deal with those relations.

“People say it’s a better way of getting investors. I would have to say ‘it’s not better, it’s different.'” Mark says about crowdfunding.

The psychology of investors

One of the differences is the psychology of investors. Mark was urged by the CEO of Indiegogo, Slava Rubin, to set a low target as participants like to back successful campaigns.

“There’s a whole bunch of psychology I didn’t understand going in,” says Mark. “If we’d had a goal of $200,000 we probably would have filled it in the first two weeks.”

“Once a campaign is fully funded, it tends to get overfunded.”

A truism of business is that banks will only lend to you when you don’t need the money and it strangely appears the same thing applies to crowdfunding.

We’re in the early days of crowdfunding and there’s more to be learned about the way it works and for which ventures the fund raising technique works best.

The experience of campaigns like Moore’s Cloud are part of how we’ll discover the nuances of crowdfunding and the psychology of the crowds that contribute.

Similar posts: