Tag: silicon valley

Raising venture capital is not the measure of success

Bringing investors on board is an important part of a business’ growth, not the end game.

“Those guys are successful, they’ve raised half a million from investors,” one startup commentator recently said about a business.

Is raising money the benchmark of business success? Surely getting investors on board is part of the journey, not the destination.

Having some investors coming on board means others share the founders’ belief their idea is a viable business and it’s a great ego boost for those working hard to bring the product to market.

That cash also exponentially improves the survival chances of the business – too many promising ventures fail because the founders haven’t enough capital.

While it’s an important milestone in the growth of a business, raising capital is not the end game. Only minds addled by the Silicon Valley kool-aide believe that.

In fact, if you’ve set up a business because you hated working for a boss, you might find your new investors are the toughest task masters you’ve ever worked for.

Good luck.

Similar posts:

Does Facebook’s float mark social media’s peak?

Is social media about to plunge into the trough of disillusionment?

After its successful float on Friday, social media giant Facebook’s stock is now 18% down on the IPO price and there are claims some investors were aware of revised analyst expectations shortly before shares went on sale.

Facebook’s share price isn’t being helped by large advertisers, most notably General Motors, publicly expressing their dissatisfaction.

In SmartCompany’s survey on business tech use, one statistic that stood out was that less than 30% of businesses were happy with their returns on social media.

Facebook can’t even win in the courts with a Californian magistrate throwing out the social media platform’s trademark case against a Norwegian pornography site.

It’s been clear for some time that the tech industry has been in an investment bubble and social media services have at been the centre of that hype .

The huge expectations of Facebook’s float value has been one of the drivers of Silicon Valley’s investment boom – a dangerous feedback loop in itself.

So now Facebook’s share price is in decline and angry investors are asking “why” and demanding answers from advisors and banks.

The real question though is does Facebook’s float mark the peak of the current tech boom in the same way AOL’s merger with Time Warner in January 2000 marked the peak of the original dot com mania?

One of the great similarities with the original dot com mania is the businesses’ failure to make money from their services – today’s Pintrest and Twitter have that much in common with the great Dot Com boom debacles of Pets.com and Boo.

The biggest problem with the social media services is most of them are advertising dependent. As we see from General Motors’ dissatisfaction and that of the businesses in the Smart Company survey, most businesses aren’t happy with the performance of social media platforms.

Getting the advertising, or other revenue streams, right is key to the survival of these services. Google cracked this after the original dot com boom and are now one of the most successful companies ever.

The companies that figure out the revenue models for social media, or online news, will be the next Google’s and Facebook could well be the business that cracks the code for social media.

For the social media industry overall, it appears the sector is now at what Gartner calls the “Peak of Inflated Expectations” on their hype cycle.

The next stage from the peak is the tumble into the “trough of disillusionment” and that appears to be where Facebook is heading.

As Gartner points out, that trough is also where good, stable businesses are built. While the sector or technology is scorned, those who survived the tumble out of fashion are able to consolidate and learn from the harsh lessons they’ve received.

Eventually the market rediscovers the technology or industry and eventually becomes accepted as a mature part of business or as Gartner put it, they enter the “plateau of productivity.”

This is exactly the process Amazon went through during the dark days of 2002 and 2003 after the tech wreck which today finds them as one of the Internet’s giants.

Whether Facebook can emulate Amazon or Google is for history to judge, but social media’s falling out of favour is not a bad thing, the wreckage of the current tech mania will see much stronger and viable social media businesses that will deliver real value to industry and society.

In the wreck of the dot com boom we saw HTML “coders” reduced from driving Porsches to driving buses, the same thing will probably happen to many of today’s social media experts. That in itself is not a bad thing.

Similar posts:

Now Facebook’s challenges really begin

How can Facebook build their revenues to justify the huge market valuation.

The long awaited float yesterday of social media service Facebook was a triumph for the business’ founder Mark Zuckerberg, his management team and advisors.

A market valuation of 100 billion dollars for a business started less than ten years ago is an impressive achievement and that sum now presents massive challenges for management who have to deliver on what investors believe the service is capable of.

At US$38 a share, Facebook is valued at 76 times its projected 2012 earnings of 50 cents a share, and nearly twenty times its expected revenues of US$5 billion. This compares to Google which trades at less than 15 times its 2012 profit estimate and six times revenue.

For Facebook to match Google’s value, the social media service is going to have to start making serious money beyond they can from charging egoists and corporations $2 a time for featured posts.

Google’s success was in moving out of their walled garden, had Google focused on advertising just on their own search pages the company would be earning a fraction of the billions they now make every quarter.

It’s difficult to see how Facebook can move off their platform into other sites and with users moving to mobile, the company will find itself even more constrained by Google and Apple who want to control access to their devices.

A more obvious course for Facebook is to maximise income from the massive data base of likes, preferences, relationships and opinions they have amassed from their users. How they do this will probably be the biggest challenge to Facebook’s management.

In monetizing their database, Facebook will push the limits of the law, tolerance of privacy advocates and possibly the patience of their user base. This is going to test a company that has in the past been slow to respond to public concerns.

Another challenge is perception – with such a massive valuation, Facebook is going to attract critics regardless of what they do.

A good example of this is the number of people criticising the float for not ‘popping’ on the stock market debut. At the end of the first day’s trading the stock had only gone up 0.6% and some in the media claimed this showed the IPO wasn’t the successful.

The idea a successful IPO is one that soars on the first day of trading is a naive view from a 1980s mindset. The idea was born out of the privatisation of British and Australian utilities in the 1980s and 90s where taxpayers were seduced by the idea of “free money” in exchange for selling community assets cheaply.

A ‘stag profit’ from a share that soars on its public float is theft from the existing shareholders and a transfer of wealth to insiders and their advisors.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists and startup founders aren’t dumb and have never fallen for that trick – investors pay dearly for stock in their ventures.

While no-one would call Mark Zuckerberg and his management team dumb they have a big job ahead of them finding revenue sources to justify the $100 billion market valuation. It’s going to be an interesting ride.

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:

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:

Insanely profitable

Apple change the game again with some major ramifications

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: