Tag Archive for Business

Wall Street Investing Like It’s 1999

Wall Street Investing Like It’s 1999 The New York Times reports that banks are pouring money into technology funds, wealthy clients and institutions are clamoring to get pieces of start-ups, expectations of stock market debuts building. As the Wall Street machinery kicks into second gear, some investors with memories of the Internet bust a decade earlier are wondering whether this sudden burst of activity spells danger for the industry once again.

With all this exuberance, valuations are soaring. Investments in Facebook and Zynga have more than quintupled the implied worth of each company in the last two years. The social shopping site Groupon is considering an initial public offering that would value the company at $25 billion. Less than a year ago, the company was valued at $1.4 billion.

I worry that investors think every social company will be as good as Facebook,” said Roger McNamee, a managing director of Elevation Partners and an investor in Facebook, who co-founded the private equity fund Silver Lake Partners in 1999 at the height of the boom. “You have an attractive set of companies right now, but it would be surprising if the next wave of social companies had as much impact as the first.

WebvanThe NYT points out the example of the online grocer, Webvan. WebVan was one of the most highly anticipated I.P.O.s of the dot-com era. The business had raised nearly $1 billion in start-up capital from institutions like Softbank of Japan, Sequoia Capital, and Goldman Sachs. Goldman, its lead underwriter, invested about $100 million. On its first day, investors cheered as Webvan’s market value soared, rising 65 percent to about $8 billion at the close. Less than two years later, Webvan was bankrupt.

Thomas Weisel, the founder of an investment bank called the Thomas Weisel Partners Group that prospered in the first Internet boom, says he is “astounded” by the amount of money now flooding the markets. “I think it’s much greater today,” he told the NYT. “The pools of capital that are looking at these Internet companies are far greater today than what you had in 2000.”

Yet there are notable differences between the turn-of-the-century dot-com boom and now. For one, the tech start-ups that have attracted so much interest from investors have real businesses — not just eyeballs and clicks. Companies like Facebook have fast-growing revenue. Groupon, which has been profitable since June 2009, is on track to take in billions in revenue this year reports the paper. And since 1999, when 248 million people were online (less than 5 percent of the world’s population), broadband Internet and personal computing have become mainstream. About one in three people are online, or roughly two billion users, according to data from Internet World Stats, a Web site that compiles such numbers.

Today, the collective amount of money that Wall Street banks are pumping into Internet start-ups, on top of the surging cash piles from venture capital groups, hedge funds, and private equity, is a major concern for some investors.

Over the last five months, the NYT says many venture capital players have raised giant amounts of capital. One Facebook investor, Accel Partners, is about to raise $2 billion for investments in China and the United States, while Bessemer Venture Partners will be closing in on $1.5 billion for a new fund. Greylock Partners, Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have collectively raised more than $3 billion in the last six months.

rb-

I can do my job without the social networker, I think the infographic above show that the VCs are no better than Wall Street, moving in a herd to Facebook. At least in 1999, the VCs were all over the place now they have settled on 5 firms.

They certainly have not made it easy for any other new ideas to get funded. The VC community has also concentrated its risk on these firms. All of these firms may be sexy on the coasts, but the only one that is relevant to me in Detroit is LinkedIn.

What do you think?

Is it 1999 again?

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

College Education Bubble

College Education Bubble-Updated 03-19-2011- The Business Insider says that It’s Stupid To Go To Harvard — You’ll Do Better As A Plumber. According to the article, Princeton University shows that expensive college degrees are not necessarily worth the lofty price tags in the long run when you take into account one’s natural ability.

The Business Insider noted the price of a college education, versus the CPI, has sky-rocketed since 1980. The cost of college has outpaced the housing bubble, with many of the same characteristics, including a government-sponsored credit bubble.  The value per dollar spent on an American college education is declining because of competitive quality concerns especially when compared to China.

College cost increaded faster thna housing

The story seems oddly familiar. During any bubble, the buyers think what they’re buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the cost is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy. Buyers see that everyone else is taking on mounds of debt, and so are more comfortable when they do so themselves; besides, for a generation, the value of what they’re buying has gone up steadily. What could go wrong? Everything continues smoothly until, at some point, it doesn’t.

Are we talking about the housing market or the higher ed market? Yes

In an Op/Ed piece on the Washington Examiner, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee explains that College has gotten a lot more expensive. The professor cites a Money magazine report, “After adjusting for financial aid, the amount families pay for college has skyrocketed 439 percent since 1982. … Normal supply and demand can’t begin to explain cost increases of this magnitude.” Based on those facts, the professor says consumers would balk at paying for higher ed except for two things according to Mr. Reynolds.

First — as with the housing bubble — cheap and readily available credit has let people borrow to finance education. They’re willing to do so because of (1) consumer ignorance, as students (and, often, their parents) don’t fully grasp just how harsh the impact of student loan payments will be after graduation; and (2) a belief that, whatever the cost, a college education is a necessary ticket to future prosperity.

Mr. Reynolds concludes, “Bubbles burst when people catch on and there are no longer enough excessively optimistic and ignorant folks to fuel them. There’s some evidence that people are beginning to catch on.” The Washington Examiner says that student loan demand is going soft, and students are expressing a willingness to go to a cheaper school than run-up debt. The Washington Post reports that one-quarter of students who took out federal loans to attend for-profit colleges defaulted within three years of starting repayment, according to a new federal analysis. Things haven’t collapsed yet, but they’re looking like the housing market looked in 2007. So what happens if the bubble collapses? Will it be a tragedy, with millions of Americans losing their path to higher-paying jobs?

Maybe not. College is often described as a path to prosperity, but is it? A college education can help people make more money in three different ways.

  1. It may actually make them more economically productive by teaching them skills valued in the workplace: Computer programming, nursing, or engineering.
  2. It may provide a credential that employers want, not because it represents real skills, but because it’s a weeding tool that doesn’t produce civil-rights suits as, say, IQ tests might. A four-year college degree, even if its holder acquired no actual skills, at least indicates some ability to show up on time and work as instructed.
  3. A college degree, at least an elite one, may hook its holder up with a useful social network that can provide jobs and opportunities in the future.

While an individual might rationally pursue all three of these, the professor says that only the first one, actually added skills, produces a net benefit for society. The other two are just distributional, about who gets the goodies, not about making more of them. Yet today’s college education system seems to be in the business of selling parts two and three to a much greater degree than part one, along with selling the even-harder-to-quantify “college experience,” which as often as not boils down to “four (or more) years of partying.”

Just if there are any doubts that the higher-ed market is broken, the costs of higher-end has outpaced even the totally dysfunctional healthcare market.

Tuition costs soar

rb-

In the aftermath of the bubble bursting, higher-ed will have to change. As we have seen in the housing bubble, industries do not reform themselves (and the government doesn’t care). If you’re planning on applying to college, watch out for those student loans. Unlike a bad mortgage on an underwater house, students can’t simply walk away from their student loans and they cannot be expunged in bankruptcy. Student loans are a financial trap.

In a mature industry like higher education, real competition usually comes from the outside. The next educational revolution will be on the internet, online coursework, and the work of “edupunks

Are you taking online classes to save cash?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Big Blue Wants to Patent Patent Trolling

Big Blue Wants to Patent Patent TrollingConceivably Tech reports that IBM (IBM) has filed a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to automates the management of intellectual property. The system that would manage Big Blue’s intellectual property (and others who could afford IBM’s costs) comes with a “defend” module to formulate a strategy in the case of patent infringement.

IBM logo TechEye says that Big Blue’s patent is designed to automate the patent process from beginning to end including suing other companies that the computer believes are infringing on a copyright. The patent components are divided into a “direct” part, which includes the overall strategy such as R&D, portfolio, filing, budgeting, and forecasting. “Control” covers factors such as market alignment, invention evaluation, IP valuation, and inventor training. “Execute” includes trade secret protection, trademark creation, IP landscaping, technology monitoring, and competitive intelligence. Conceivably Tech quotes the “defend”, “influence” and capitalize modules of the application:

“defending against infringements and invalidations of said IP rights based on said business strategies and monitoring market and competitor actions to develop risk management plans; an influence computer module including a standards influencing unit, a legal and regulatory influencing unit, and a policy influencing unit; and capitalize computer module for identifying potential licensees and potential assignees of said IP rights, and managing licensing negotiations, cross-licensing negotiations, and assignment negotiations based on said business strategies.”

TechEye points out the irony of how the software was created. They point out that an IBMer collected all the experience IBM gained from filing more than 100 patents every week and put the data into a chart. From there Big Blue decided that given the way the IP world is shaping up these days, they should patent IP themselves. Thus IBM has patented the patent process. What they came up with is:

TechEye concludes that IBM’s patent application is really an automated troll. They conclude that if the patent office approves this, then it means that every time you patent something you have to give IBM a fee to see if you did it differently from Big Blue’s process. Otherwise, its software might send you a subpoena.

rb-

This must seem like a god-send to organizations whose business model has de-evolved into patent trolling. Some of these cases I have written about are the CSIRO Wi-Fi patent activities, all the craziness in the smartphone market, and MSFT co-founder Paul Allen’s attempts to sue most of the web.

Gotta give it to IBM, its like TechEye says, “If you can’t beat the trolls, patent the process that creates them.”

Do you believe the U.S. Patent Office is still useful?

Does IBM deserve to collect a tax from every innovator?

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

AT&T 3G Network Magically Upgraded to 4G

AT&T 3G Network Magically Upgraded to 4GNow that the ITU has caved to the marketers at big telecom, miracles happen. AT&T (T), America’s second-largest wireless carrier, found that its 3G HSPA+ network had automagically evolved all by itself into a fourth-generation (4G) wireless network. Proponents of 4G promise that 4G mobile internet speeds are considerably faster than current wireless networks providing faster download, super-fast video streaming, and more billing opportunities.

Since the ITU downgraded the definition of 4G to catch up with the marketers and declared, “4G …  may also be applied … to the initial third generation systems now deployed” there is no consensus of what exact speed is a 4G network, so companies are free to claim what they want and hopefully the market will sort it out.

AT&T is betting that its customers are too dumb to care. TechEYE cites a Reuters report that AT&T’s chief exec Ralph de la Vega believes that consumers won’t notice the difference between HSPA+ and the forthcoming LTE network stating that “The whole industry has come to equate more speed with 4G.” TechEYE points out that AT&T saw a similar miracle in September 2010 when the marketers found that its HSPA+ network became “the nation’s fastest mobile broadband network.

rb-

The Business Insider has proof consumers don’t care about 4G. They report on Nielsen on findings that only 54% really knew what it meant (super-fast wireless). 27% of the people polled think it’s the latest version of the iPhone. Only 29% of the people polled said they were planning on buying a 4G phone in the next year.

proof consumers don't care about 4G.

 

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

AOL Profits Come From Misinformed Customers

AOL Profits Come From Misinformed CustomersThe Huffington Post notes a New Yorker article (sub req) by Ken Auletta who describes how America Online (AOL)  makes its profit. The article claims that 80% of America Online’s profits come from subscribers, and 75% of those subscribers are paying AOL for something they don’t actually need.

According to Mr. Auletta AOL still gets eighty percent of its profits from subscribers, many of whom are older people who have cable or DSL service but don’t realize that they need not pay an extra $25.00 a month to get online and check their e-mail. “The dirty little secret,” a former AOL executive says, “is that seventy-five percent of the people who subscribe to AOL’s dial-up service don’t need it.”

The HuffPost says a full 60% of AOL’s profits come from mostly older misinformed customers who don’t realize that they don’t need to subscribe to AOL to get online. Although the number of subscribers has sharply decreased from thirty-five million in 2002 to just over four million today, that is still a hefty number of confused people getting nothing for their money.

In an update on the Huffington Post, it says that This post originally assumed that all of AOL’s subscribers received dial-up. According to AOL’s corporate communication office, there are various plans offered and dial-up is not included in all of them. However, AOL declined to say what percentage of subscribers did not receive dial-up.

The HuffPost points that this may not be a scam, as Business Insider mistakenly suggested earlier, but it does seem to suggest that AOL could be doing more to keep their customers informed about the service they offer. Business Insider provides a handy set of screen captures to show customers exactly how to unsubscribe.

rb-

AOL really, they are still around?

Now that AOL has bought the Huffington Post would they carry this story?

When was the last time you used AOL?

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.