Tag: investment

Duly diligent

In an age of entitlement, we need to be careful of who we vote for, invest and do business with.

“Who would have thought our CEO didn’t have the qualifications we thought he had?” wonders the Yahoo! board.

“It seems we forgot to count the number of beds!” whines the cleaning contractor when challenged about a filthy hospital.

“We had no idea these people were corrupt,” growls the politician and former trade union official when confronted with proof its factional friends were misusing expenses.

An interesting phenomenon in the rise of the managerial classes over the last thirty years has been the group’s refusal to take responsibility for their failures.

Instead we see boards, investors, managers and politicians duck responsibilities that a reasonable observer would have thought is the reason for their healthy salaries, bonuses and perks.

One of the many conceits of 1980s thinking is the ideology of “personal responsibility” – to low paid workers and those at the bottom of society this mantra is applied ruthlessly.

The call centre worker who makes a mistake gets counselled or fired while the aboriginal kid who steals a can of coke is denied bail and goes to jail.

Let’s not mention the fines and sanctions that befall a small business owner who is too slow in submitting paperwork or forgets to pay one of the countless fees that make up today’s hidden taxation.

In boardrooms and Parliaments those doing the wrong thing rarely face any accountability; politicians caught misclaiming expenses are allowed to pay it back at their convenience while senior executives and captains of industry with a track record of mistakes continue to be employed in positions way beyond their abilities.

One exception to the that rule is former Tyco Chief Executive Dennis Kozlowski and his cohorts who looted their company through the 1990s. Eventually their excesses became so great that the CEO and his cronies ended up being jailed.

Not that this has rattled some of his cronies sense of entitlement. Former CFO Mark Swartz is suing the company for $60 million in retirement benefits and other monies.

I have a personal connection with Messrs Swartz and Kozlowski – I worked for their company in the mid 1990s and lasted nine months in a culture of cronyism and rorts where middle management enthusiastically aped the excesses of their senior executives.

One can argue I didn’t carry out my due diligence – a little bit of digging and more detailed asking around would have revealed Tyco’s institutionalised corruption and cronyism at the time.

I paid for this oversight by having my contract terminated in a public and humiliating way which drove me to set up my own business.

While working for companies like Tyco I saw them drive smaller businesses into the ground through slow, or non payment, of invoices. Strangely they always seemed to pay the corporate hospitality bills on time.

The weakness in today’s corporatist economy is that boards like that at Yahoo!, executives like Tyco’s in the 1990s and many of our business and political leaders have a sense of entitlement way beyond the value they add to their business, community or society.

Worse, the main lesson of 2008’s financial crisis is that massive government spending will protect these peoples’ bonuses and privileges regardless of their actions.

As investors, employees, suppliers and voters we have to do our due diligence on these people and organisations. We have the tools today to check the track record of those who want our vote, skills or products.

In today’s economy, we can’t afford to squander money or time on those who demand fat fees and salaries without delivering value.

At the cash register and ballot box, it’s time to do our due diligence.

Similar posts:

Depreciating the future

We’ve become used to not planning for necessary costs. Will it eventually hurt us?

When I wrote my first book back in 1998, one of the things my editor and I did was look at the cost of buying and maintaining technology.

Regardless of how we chopped the costs up, it came up consistently that the purchase cost of a personal computer was around a third of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).

The TCO concept is something forgotten by people – be it a minister announcing a billion dollar purchase of jet fighters, a CEO boasting how he’s opened a hundred new outlets this year, or a family buying an investment property.

It was bought sharply into focus for me when one of my kids claimed he couldn’t use his government provided school laptop because the IT guy didn’t have the repair software to fix a problem.

Despite millions being spent on providing these computers, little has been allocated to maintaining them.

This is typical of the public education sector, early in the adventure of building a computer support business I learned that services to schools and universities were fraught with difficulties as many would infrequently receive a fixed amount for capital expenditure but nothing for ongoing maintenance. You see this in the conditions of buildings on many campuses.

Forgetting operating and support costs is something we all fall for.

Strangely motor vehicles are the only area we consistently factor in maintenance and running costs, probably because we get the fuel price shoved in our face every time we take the car for a drive.

While computers are becoming disposable items just like fridges and TVs were maintenance isn’t so much an issue given most last five to ten years before needing expensive repairs, its still true for many capital items.

There’s another aspect to forgetting costs – depreciation.

Depreciation allows us to factor in the declining value of our business assets yet I keep meeting people who treat depreciation as income or even an asset in itself. This is particularly true among real estate investors who prefer to buy newly built apartments for the higher depreciation deductions they can claim against tax.

Bizarre stuff and true bubble thinking where people think operating losses will be offset in the medium term by capital gains.

One of the aspects of 1980s thinking is that business costs like training and maintenance can be palmed off elsewhere or infinitely deferred. That isn’t the case.

In society and business, we’re seeing the effects of pretending these costs don’t exist. Somewhere in there lies opportunity.

Similar posts:

The Free Myth

Free services often come at a cost of your time.

One of the biggest dangers to businesses is the belief that something is “free”.

As we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When another business gives you something for free it’s safe to say there is a cost somewhere.

One of the speakers at the City of Sydney’s Let’s Talk Business social media event stated this when talking about social media saying “I can’t believe all businesses aren’t on Facebook – it’s free.”

Social media isn’t free. We all know the value services like Facebook are mining are the tastes, habits and opinions of their users.

For businesses, engaging heavily in Facebook or any other social media service hands over far more information about their customers to a third party than they themselves would be able to collect.

All of that information handed over to a service like Google or Facebook can come back to bite the business, particularly if a well cashed up competitor decides to advertise at the demographic the business caters to.

The core fallacy though is that these service are “free”. They aren’t.

Every single service comes with a time cost. Every social media expert advises the same thing, businesses have to post to their preferred service of choice at least three times a week and those posts should be strategically thought out.

That advice is right, but it costs time.

For a business owner, freelancer or entrepreneur time is their scarcest asset. You can always rebuild your bank account but you can never recover time.

Big businesses face the same problem, but they overcome this with money by hiring people for their time. In smaller businesses, this time comes out of the proprietor’s twenty-four crowded hours each day.

The computer and internet industries are good at giving away stuff for free, in doing so they burn investors’ money and the time of their users. The social media business model hopes to pay a return to investors by trading the data users contribute in their time.

While businesses can benefit from using social media services, they have to be careful they aren’t wasting too much of their valuable time while giving away their customers to a third party.

Often when somebody looks back on their life they say “I wish I had more time.” They’ve learned too late that asset has been wasted.

Wasting that unreplaceable asset on building someone else’s database would be a tragedy.

Similar posts:

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:

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:

Bubble economics

The fear of missing out drives most investment booms. Today’s Silicon Valley is no different.

You know you’re in an investment bubble when the pundits declare “we’re not in a bubble”.

A good example of this is Andy Baio’s defence of Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of Instagram.

Justifying the price, Andy compares the Facebook purchase with a number of notorious Silicon Valley buyouts using two metrics; cost per employee and cost per user.

Which proves the old saw of “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

The use of esoteric and barely relevant statistics is one of the characteristics of a bubble; all of a sudden the old metrics don’t apply and, because of the never ending blue sky ahead, valuations can only go up.

Andy’s statistics are good example of this and ignore the three things that really matter when a business is bought.

Current earnings

The simplest test of a business’ viability is how much money is it making? For the vast majority of businesses bought and sold in the world economy, this is the measure.

Whether you’re buying a local newsagency outright or shares in a multinational manufacturer, this is the simplest and most effective measure of a sensible investment.

Future earnings

More complex, but more important, are the prospects of future earnings. That local newsagency or multinational manufacturer might look like a good investment on today’s figures, but it may be in a declining market.

Similarly a business incurring losses at the moment may be profitable under better management. This was the basis of the buyout boom of the 1980s and much of the 1990s.

Most profitable of all is buying into a high growth business, if you can find the next Google or Apple you can retire to the coast. The hope of finding these is what drives much of the current venture capital gold rush.

Strategic reasons

For corporations, there may be good strategic reasons for buying out a business that on paper doesn’t appear to be a good investment.

There’s a whole host of reasons why an organisation would do that, one variation of the Silicon Valley business model is to buy in talented developers who are running their own startups. Google and Facebook have made many acquisitions of small software development companies for that reason.

Fear Of Missing Out

In the Silicon Valley model, the biggest strategic reason for paying over the odds for a business is FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out.

To be fair to the valley, this is true in any bubble – whether it’s for Dutch tulips in the 17th Century or Florida property in the 20th. If you don’t buy now, you’ll miss out on big profits.

When we look at Andy Baio’s charts in Wired, this is what leaps out. Most of the purchases were driven by managements’ fear they were going to miss The Next Big Thing.

The most notorious of all in Andy’s chart is News Corp’s 580 million dollar purchase of MySpace, although there were good strategic reasons for the transaction which Rupert Murdoch’s management team were unable to realise.

eBay’s $2.6 billion acquisition of Skype is probably the best example of Fear Of Missing Out, particularly given they sold it back to the original founders who promptly flicked it to Microsoft. eBay redeems itself though with the strategic purchase of PayPal.

Probably the worst track record goes to Yahoo! who have six of the thirty purchases listed on Andy’s list and not one of them has delivered for Yahoo!’s long suffering shareholders.

The term “greater fools” probably doesn’t come close to describe Yahoo!’s management over the last decade or so.

While Andy Baio’s article seeks to disprove the idea of a Silicon Valley bubble, what he shows is the bubble is alive, big and growing.

One of the exciting things about bubbles is they have a habit of growing bigger than most rational outsiders expect before they burst spectacularly.

We live in exciting times.

Similar posts:

Hyping start ups for pleasure and profit

The Silicon Valley VC model is not sustainable for most businesses and industries.

Monday’s announcement that Facebook would buy photo sharing website Instagram shows the power of Silicon Valley investor networks and how they operate, we should be careful about trying to emulate that model too closely.

Intagram has been operating for 18 months, has 13 employees, has no prospects of making a profit and is worth a billion dollars to the social media giant. Pretty impressive.

A look at the employees and investors in Instagram shows the pedigree of the founders and their connections; all the regular Silicon Valley names appear – people connected with Google, Sequoia Capital, Twitter, Andreessen Horowitz.

The network is the key to the sale, just as groups of entrepreneurs, investors, workers and innovators came together to build manufacturing hubs like the English Midlands in the 18th Century, the US midwest in the 19th Century and the Pearl River Delta at the end of the 20th Century, so too have they come together in Silicon Valley for the internet economy.

It’s tempting for governments to try to ape the perceived successes of Silicon Valley through subsidies and industry support programs but real success is to build networks around the strengths of the local economy, this is what drove those manufacturing hubs and today’s successful technology centres.

What’s dangerous in the current dot com mania in Silicon Valley is the rest of the world is learning the wrong lessons; we’re glamourising a specific, narrow business model that’s built around a small group of insiders.

The Greater Fool business model is only applicable to a tiny sub set of well connected entrepreneurs in a very narrow ecosystem.

For most businesses the Greater Fool business model isn’t valid.

Even in Silicon Valley the great, successful business like Apple, Google and Facebook – and those not in Silicon Valley like Microsoft and Amazon – built real revenues and profits and didn’t grow by selling out to the dominant corporations of the day.

The Instagrams and other high profile startup buy outs are the exception, not the rule.

If we define “success” by finding someone willing to spend shareholders’ equity on a business without profits then these businesses are insanely successful.

Should we define business success by creating profits, jobs or shareholder value then the Silicon Valley VC model isn’t the one we want to follow.

We need to also keep in mind that Silicon Valley is a historical accident that owes as much to government spending on military technology as it does to entrepreneurs and well connected venture capital funds.

It’s unlikely any country – even the United States – could today replicate the Cold War defense spending that drove Silicon Valley’s development and much of California’s post World War II growth.

One thing the United States government has done is pump the world economy full of money to avoid a global depression after the crisis of 2008.

Some of that money has bubbled up in Silicon Valley and that’s where the money comes to buy companies like Instagram.

Rather than try to replicate the historical good fortune of others, we need to make our own luck by building the structures that work for our strengths and advantages.

Similar posts: