Bloomberg TV dedica un profilo nella sua serie Bloomberg Risk Takers a Elon Musk, l'imprenditore visionario creatore di PayPal e CEO di Tesla Motors e di SpaceX. Musk is the entrepreneur who helped create PayPal, built America’s first viable fully electric car company, started the nation’s biggest solar energy supplier, and may make commercial space travel a reality in our lifetime. And he’s only 40.
Visualizzazione post con etichetta venture capital. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta venture capital. Mostra tutti i post
lunedì 19 settembre 2011
mercoledì 17 agosto 2011
Come creare nuovi posti di lavoro?
Il rallentamento dell'economia USA e più in generale di tutti i paesi sviluppati non deve stupire: siamo nell'era del deleveraging e molti studi hanno mostrato come la ripresa economica sia lenta e anemica per molti anni dopo una crisi bancaria e finanziaria. Un editoriale sul New York Times di oggi si chiede come mai le società americane, ricche di liquidità, non impieghino una parte di essa per promuovere la crescita:
Some 25 million people — more than 16 percent of the work force — are looking for full-time work. Companies are hoarding cash while reporting record profits.
As for the government, President Obama’s idea of job creation is extending unemployment insurance, on the one hand, and painting grandiose pictures of far-off “green jobs,” on the other. He is bereft of ideas for creating jobs in the here and now. Meanwhile, the Republicans insist — despite mounds of evidence to the contrary — that more tax cuts would create jobs. By now, most Americans have lost hope that our current government will come up with a viable jobs program. It won’t.
I am coming more and more to think that with the government essentially paralyzed for the foreseeable future, the only way we’re going to get jobs is by turning to actual job creators: business itself. With all their cash, companies shouldn’t be waiting for Congress to give them tax incentives to hire people. They should be trying to jump-start the economy — and fend off another recession — by making investments, and hiring workers, that will lead to renewed prosperity.
Secondo Nocera una delle ragioni che trattengono le compagnie dall'investire e assumere nuova forza lavoro è il timore che gli altri competitors non facciano altrettanto:
There is, of course, another reason corporate executives might be reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits by putting people to work. What if their competitors didn’t go along? Then they would find themselves at a disadvantage. Useem would tackle that by having a credible group like the Business Roundtable leading the charge, rounding up companies that would agree to start hiring.
But Marc Groz, a financial risk expert I’ve gotten to know, has what I think is a more intriguing approach, which he calls a “contingent commitment facility.” “Everyone is waiting for someone else to go first,” he told me the other day. Using his facility, a company would agree to hire X number of new workers. But the commitment would only become binding if certain conditions were met — such as having other companies in the same industry agree to do likewise. Once that happened, all the companies would have to do what they’d promised.
Groz’s idea is new and fresh and untested. It could fail. In other words, it is exactly the kind of out-of-the-box “job creation” idea that our stymied government no longer has the ability to come up with. The ball’s in business’s court now.
C'è una curiosa convergenza tra le tesi del liberal Nocera e le proposte avanzate qualche giorno fa da Mark Cuban, impenditore multimiliardario (secondo Forbes è al 459 posto nella classifica mondiale con un net worth di 2,5 miliardi di dollari), proprietario della squadra NBA Dallas Mavericks e blogger. In un post recente Cuban ha proposto un originale meccanismo di incentivazione per la creazione di nuova occupazione. La sua analisi dell'impasse nel dibattito democratici/repubblicani al riguardo mi sembra perfetta, non sono in grado di dire se l'idea sia praticabile ma così su due piedi non mi sembra una sciocchezza. Ecco cosa scrive Cuban:
I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
Qui sotto potete vedere una recente intervista a Cuban tratta dal sito del Wall Street Journal: il personaggio è divertente e ci sono molti spunti interessanti sulla gestione di portafoglio ("buy and hold is a crock of $%#!" and diversification is for idiots) e su come la legislatura attuale relativa alla proprietà intellettuale e ai brevetti stia soffocando la creatività.
Some 25 million people — more than 16 percent of the work force — are looking for full-time work. Companies are hoarding cash while reporting record profits.
As for the government, President Obama’s idea of job creation is extending unemployment insurance, on the one hand, and painting grandiose pictures of far-off “green jobs,” on the other. He is bereft of ideas for creating jobs in the here and now. Meanwhile, the Republicans insist — despite mounds of evidence to the contrary — that more tax cuts would create jobs. By now, most Americans have lost hope that our current government will come up with a viable jobs program. It won’t.
I am coming more and more to think that with the government essentially paralyzed for the foreseeable future, the only way we’re going to get jobs is by turning to actual job creators: business itself. With all their cash, companies shouldn’t be waiting for Congress to give them tax incentives to hire people. They should be trying to jump-start the economy — and fend off another recession — by making investments, and hiring workers, that will lead to renewed prosperity.
Secondo Nocera una delle ragioni che trattengono le compagnie dall'investire e assumere nuova forza lavoro è il timore che gli altri competitors non facciano altrettanto:
There is, of course, another reason corporate executives might be reluctant to sacrifice short-term profits by putting people to work. What if their competitors didn’t go along? Then they would find themselves at a disadvantage. Useem would tackle that by having a credible group like the Business Roundtable leading the charge, rounding up companies that would agree to start hiring.
But Marc Groz, a financial risk expert I’ve gotten to know, has what I think is a more intriguing approach, which he calls a “contingent commitment facility.” “Everyone is waiting for someone else to go first,” he told me the other day. Using his facility, a company would agree to hire X number of new workers. But the commitment would only become binding if certain conditions were met — such as having other companies in the same industry agree to do likewise. Once that happened, all the companies would have to do what they’d promised.
Groz’s idea is new and fresh and untested. It could fail. In other words, it is exactly the kind of out-of-the-box “job creation” idea that our stymied government no longer has the ability to come up with. The ball’s in business’s court now.
C'è una curiosa convergenza tra le tesi del liberal Nocera e le proposte avanzate qualche giorno fa da Mark Cuban, impenditore multimiliardario (secondo Forbes è al 459 posto nella classifica mondiale con un net worth di 2,5 miliardi di dollari), proprietario della squadra NBA Dallas Mavericks e blogger. In un post recente Cuban ha proposto un originale meccanismo di incentivazione per la creazione di nuova occupazione. La sua analisi dell'impasse nel dibattito democratici/repubblicani al riguardo mi sembra perfetta, non sono in grado di dire se l'idea sia praticabile ma così su due piedi non mi sembra una sciocchezza. Ecco cosa scrive Cuban:
I think the first problem to solve is creating jobs.
The Republican/ Tea-Party approach to job creation is to cut taxes. The theory being that more money in the pocket of individuals will cause people to spend more money in the economy thereby creating more jobs. Nope. Not happening. Why ? Because individuals have too much debt. Any money they get goes to pay credit cards, student loans and for the smart and fortunate into savings.
Individuals now have debt = to about 119pct of income vs historical levels of .17pct in the 40s, 55pct in the 50s , 65pct in the 60s and a high of 133pct in 2007). It didn’t create enough jobs to have an impact and it won’t in this environment. They also think the same applied to corporations will translate into more jobs. Nope. That is not the case. Big companies in particular are not cash poor. Whether its re-patriation of cash in foreign countries or lower tax rates, neither lead to the creation of new jobs in this economy. It just leads to more cash in the bank.
So the Democrats are right, we should borrow more money. The Dems are wrong that the government knows how to spend the money. The Republicans/Tea Party are right that we have a spending problem. The Republicans/Tea Party are wrong that cutting taxes will result in more jobs.
So IMHO, creating jobs isn’t about the government spending money on jobs /projects, nor is it about cutting taxes. It’s about taking a page from the technology and common sense world.
How is this for a revolutionary thought: Companies that would create jobs if they had more cash know who they are. Right ? If you own a company and are thinking to yourself “Self, if I could borrow or get an investment into my company I could hire X more people to grow the company/meet demand/release a new product/whatever” So rather than guessing and hoping what might happen, why don’t we let companies self identify themselves ?
And not only should they self-identify themselves as companies, they should be able to bid on Government Loans or even actual equity investments. Call me crazy, but I think we should be playing a game of “I Can Name that Tune in X Notes” re-named and reformatted as “I Can Create X Jobs for Y Amount of Money”
Seriously. Call me crazy (and Im sure many of you will), but there is no reason why we can’t quickly create a federal website that allows existing companies to say to the Federal Government how much money they need and how many jobs they can create for that money and for what duration are they committing to maintain those jobs for the money.
Of course you will have to set some minimum parameters in order to prevent the dreamers, crazies and who knows whats from clogging up the system. I would set those minimums including: The company must be in business for at least 10 years. They must be have at least 100 full time employees. They must do 100mm in revenues. And of course they must be up to date on their taxes and Im sure there are other things to think of as well.
I’m sure I have pissed off everyone who doesn’t qualify. Sorry.
The reality is that for this to work the universe of companies has to be small enough so that the system put in place is not overwhelmed. The companies must be big enough to be able to respond to any required due diligence information. If this is made to work, the qualifications could be reduced to expand the universe of eligible companies.
Who would be the decision makers ? I would set up multiple 5 person regional committees across the country. I’m not quite sure who would pick the members, or what their exact qualifications should be, but I can tell you what I would set as a requirement. People would only be eligible to be on the committee if they had not made a political contribution of any kind directly to a politician or to a PAC of any sort in the last 5 years. This can not be a politically dominated decision process.
The committees would then look at the submissions, starting with the ones that promised the most jobs at the least cost. Then they would do their due diligence about the company and request and make a decision. Yes or No. Equity or Debt. Terms of repayment or ownership (exit or return of capital on par with other equity partners) Then on to the next. Funding would come from short term treasury borrowings. As long as the program had submissions and those submissions resulted in positive returns, the program would continue.
Oh, and one more important element. Transparency. You apply and get your money, the amount of money you got and the jobs you committed to and for how long will be published publicly. Visibility has a way of keeping people honest.
I know this is just a rough idea, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration. Rather than having Dems and Republicans fight ideological battles about job creation, lets get direct. Lets just ask companies to tell us how many jobs they would create and how much they need and see what it all adds up to and go from there
What do you think ?
Qui sotto potete vedere una recente intervista a Cuban tratta dal sito del Wall Street Journal: il personaggio è divertente e ci sono molti spunti interessanti sulla gestione di portafoglio ("buy and hold is a crock of $%#!" and diversification is for idiots) e su come la legislatura attuale relativa alla proprietà intellettuale e ai brevetti stia soffocando la creatività.
giovedì 13 gennaio 2011
Meglio il vino di Facebook e dei tulipani 2.0!
Secondo il Wall Street Journal, malgrado le smentite ufficiali, anche Facebook sta preparandosi per la quotazione in borsa: lo dimostrerebbe un corposo documento fatto circolare tra potenziali investitori nel quale si afferma la volontà di aumentare il numero degli azionisti oltre 500, limite oltre il quale la S.E.C. impone la registrazione e la diffusione dei dati di bilancio come per una società quotata. Solo tre giorni fa si era diffusa la notizia che Linkedin sta preparando la quotazione in borsa, probabilmente entro la primavera di quest'anno.
A mio avviso Charles Rotblut, editore del Journal of the American Association of Individual Investors, ha ragione: un buon investimento può essere popolare, ma essere popolare, di per sè, non garantisce un buon investimento. Facebook stock is the latest mania...
E' della stessa opinione anche Jason Zweig che intelligentemente osserva come:
Facebook's best option for selling equity and remaining private was to tap into the kind of wealthy investor network that Goldman can provide. By offering shares to its most favored clients and forcing them to commit or decline in less than a week, Goldman made investing in Facebook seem like a precious privilege. The remarkable price for Facebook's stock, reportedly around $50 billion, or some 25 times the company's revenues, has been set in a closed feedback loop rather than in an open market. Facebook and Goldman declined to comment. Investors are buying more than hope, of course. With roughly 600 million users and closing in on $500 million in annual profit, Facebook looks unstoppable.(...)
Even if Facebook continues to hit the mother lode of social-network profits, new investors could end up with little to show for it. In January 1875, during the Nevada silver rush, the price of Consolidated Virginia Mine hit $700 a share or a total value of $75.6 million (roughly $1.5 billion today). That was 15 times the company's revenues the year before, according to records compiled in 1883 by researcher Eliot Lord. Over the next four years, investors earned some $42 million in dividends—and, even so, the stock collapsed to $3 a share by the end of 1879. Investors who bought in on the ground floor in 1870, at $1 a share, tripled their money. Those who came later were wiped out, even though they owned a stake in an immensely profitable business.
The exceptions are obvious—Google with its own IPO in 2004, when the company sold stock at more than 10 times its revenues for the current year, or Apple at its last peak in 2000 at more than 22 times its profits the year before. Today Apple is the world's second-largest stock by market value, and Google remains the unquestioned king of Internet search.
But the exceptions also are incredibly rare.
Ma non tutti sono d'accordo: c'è addirittura un'analista che stima (un po' scherzosamente) il fair value di Facebook intorno ai 200 miliardi di dollari (a patto che in 10 anni tutta la popolazione della terra sia iscritta a Facebook, un'ipotesi un po' azzardata viste ad esempio le difficoltà di penetrazione di Facebook in Giappone...i calcoli li trovate qui).
Qui invece potete leggere come i pusher della bolla web 2.0 promuovano l'investimento in Twitter...
...a quando un social network per scambiare i bulbi dei tulipani?
Per parte mia penso che sia più lungimirante investire in vino...+57% nel 2010 e +269% in cinque anni non sono rendimenti da disprezzare! E se proprio va male potete sempre decidere di bere le bottiglie comprate! Se volete un consiglio per nulla disinteressato ma assolutamente da seguire potete iniziare da qui...;)
A mio avviso Charles Rotblut, editore del Journal of the American Association of Individual Investors, ha ragione: un buon investimento può essere popolare, ma essere popolare, di per sè, non garantisce un buon investimento. Facebook stock is the latest mania...
E' della stessa opinione anche Jason Zweig che intelligentemente osserva come:
Facebook's best option for selling equity and remaining private was to tap into the kind of wealthy investor network that Goldman can provide. By offering shares to its most favored clients and forcing them to commit or decline in less than a week, Goldman made investing in Facebook seem like a precious privilege. The remarkable price for Facebook's stock, reportedly around $50 billion, or some 25 times the company's revenues, has been set in a closed feedback loop rather than in an open market. Facebook and Goldman declined to comment. Investors are buying more than hope, of course. With roughly 600 million users and closing in on $500 million in annual profit, Facebook looks unstoppable.(...)
Even if Facebook continues to hit the mother lode of social-network profits, new investors could end up with little to show for it. In January 1875, during the Nevada silver rush, the price of Consolidated Virginia Mine hit $700 a share or a total value of $75.6 million (roughly $1.5 billion today). That was 15 times the company's revenues the year before, according to records compiled in 1883 by researcher Eliot Lord. Over the next four years, investors earned some $42 million in dividends—and, even so, the stock collapsed to $3 a share by the end of 1879. Investors who bought in on the ground floor in 1870, at $1 a share, tripled their money. Those who came later were wiped out, even though they owned a stake in an immensely profitable business.
The exceptions are obvious—Google with its own IPO in 2004, when the company sold stock at more than 10 times its revenues for the current year, or Apple at its last peak in 2000 at more than 22 times its profits the year before. Today Apple is the world's second-largest stock by market value, and Google remains the unquestioned king of Internet search.
But the exceptions also are incredibly rare.
Ma non tutti sono d'accordo: c'è addirittura un'analista che stima (un po' scherzosamente) il fair value di Facebook intorno ai 200 miliardi di dollari (a patto che in 10 anni tutta la popolazione della terra sia iscritta a Facebook, un'ipotesi un po' azzardata viste ad esempio le difficoltà di penetrazione di Facebook in Giappone...i calcoli li trovate qui).
Qui invece potete leggere come i pusher della bolla web 2.0 promuovano l'investimento in Twitter...
...a quando un social network per scambiare i bulbi dei tulipani?
Per parte mia penso che sia più lungimirante investire in vino...+57% nel 2010 e +269% in cinque anni non sono rendimenti da disprezzare! E se proprio va male potete sempre decidere di bere le bottiglie comprate! Se volete un consiglio per nulla disinteressato ma assolutamente da seguire potete iniziare da qui...;)
venerdì 7 gennaio 2011
Un rapporto prezzo/ricavi un po' gonfiato?
Linkedin sta preparando la quotazione in borsa: ne parlano il New York Times
e il Wall Street Journal. Linkedin ha 85 milioni di utenti registrati, cresce al ritmo di 30-35 milioni di utenti all'anno e ha una valutazione implicita dagli scambi sui mercati OTC di circa 2 miliardi di dollari. Forse i 50 miliardi di valutazione per Facebook - con circa 500 milioni di utenti e tassi di crescita confrontabili, potete leggere un po' di dati statistici su Facebook qui - sono un po' gonfiate...apparentemente la pensa così anche l'Economist appena stampato dal quale ho tratto la figura qui sotto, che ho trovato irresistibile...
Secondo il settimanale inglese il rapporto prezzo/ricavi implicito nella valutazione di Facebook è 25...Sembra di essere tornati nei ruggenti anni Novanta!
Facebook’s implicit value has risen fivefold since mid-2009, but sceptics doubt that a firm whose business model is unproven is worth more than established media giants such as Time Warner (...) at $50 billion Facebook looks rather expensive. If its sales really are $2 billion a year, that implies that Goldman and DST are paying 25 times current revenues for their shares. That would be a breathtakingly steep multiple, even by the giddy standards of the start-up world.
L'articolo poi prosegue analizzando le richieste di informazioni da parte della S.E.C. sugli investors pools coinvolti nell'acquisto di una quota di Facebook e sui mercati OTC sui quali sono scambiate azioni di Facebook e di altri social networks. Ulteriori notizie sulle preoccupazioni della S.E.C. le trovate in questo articolo del NYT.
e il Wall Street Journal. Linkedin ha 85 milioni di utenti registrati, cresce al ritmo di 30-35 milioni di utenti all'anno e ha una valutazione implicita dagli scambi sui mercati OTC di circa 2 miliardi di dollari. Forse i 50 miliardi di valutazione per Facebook - con circa 500 milioni di utenti e tassi di crescita confrontabili, potete leggere un po' di dati statistici su Facebook qui - sono un po' gonfiate...apparentemente la pensa così anche l'Economist appena stampato dal quale ho tratto la figura qui sotto, che ho trovato irresistibile...
Facebook’s implicit value has risen fivefold since mid-2009, but sceptics doubt that a firm whose business model is unproven is worth more than established media giants such as Time Warner (...) at $50 billion Facebook looks rather expensive. If its sales really are $2 billion a year, that implies that Goldman and DST are paying 25 times current revenues for their shares. That would be a breathtakingly steep multiple, even by the giddy standards of the start-up world.
L'articolo poi prosegue analizzando le richieste di informazioni da parte della S.E.C. sugli investors pools coinvolti nell'acquisto di una quota di Facebook e sui mercati OTC sui quali sono scambiate azioni di Facebook e di altri social networks. Ulteriori notizie sulle preoccupazioni della S.E.C. le trovate in questo articolo del NYT.
martedì 4 gennaio 2011
Niente male come commissioni....
Dal New York Times Dealbook di oggi:
The Price of Goldman's Facebook Offer Lucky enough to be a Goldman Sachs high-net-worth client? The firm's private wealth management unit will still charge you stiff fees for the right to invest in Facebook: a 4 percent placement fee and a 5 percent cut of the investment's profits, according to DealBook. Expect to invest at least $2 million and an investment lockup until 2013.
Forse è meglio cambiare intermediario o social network. Intanto la S.E.C. vuole capire un po' meglio cosa sta succedendo e come funzionano questi mercati.
The Price of Goldman's Facebook Offer Lucky enough to be a Goldman Sachs high-net-worth client? The firm's private wealth management unit will still charge you stiff fees for the right to invest in Facebook: a 4 percent placement fee and a 5 percent cut of the investment's profits, according to DealBook. Expect to invest at least $2 million and an investment lockup until 2013.
Forse è meglio cambiare intermediario o social network. Intanto la S.E.C. vuole capire un po' meglio cosa sta succedendo e come funzionano questi mercati.
mercoledì 29 dicembre 2010
Come investire in Facebook o in Linkedin?
Supponete di voler investire in alcuni dei nomi più famosi del Web, come Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, e così via. Come si può fare? Ne parla in un articolo il Wall Street Journal di ieri secondo il quale il mercato per queste famose società è in forte crescita a dispetto del fatto che non siano ancora state quotate e che il mercato delle IPOs sia ai minimi storici.
![[FACEBOOK]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AY802_FACEBO_NS_20101227182123.jpg)
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
Post
