jadexvsq: Making Money Ideas

There are probably 10 events equivalent or larger than Le Web throughout the year, as well as smaller events every day. We regularly ran into Robert Scoble and other major blogs, and they were very keen on listening to us. Local event organizers were even eager to help make a Finnish Angry Birds event happen and to introduce us to hundreds of people!

Readjustment of Expectations

These elements fit with each other and form the ground for growth business to happen. The old continent often looks up to the Valley as a sort of Eldorado of IT. Countries such as the UK, Russia and Finland are trying to replicate its ecosystem, to stimulate their local industries. Silicon Valley is a hub. Its value lies in two generations of people with unique know-how that are given all the tools necessary to create growth. No amount of EU or taxpayer money is going to recreate this perfect storm.

Not Businessmen, Entrepreneurs

We Europeans think of entrepreneurs as businessmen. This might be valid for lifestyle, predictable businesses, but the job of a startup entrepreneur is different: to test assumptions, to learn, and to create something new.

A trader on Wall St. can make money circulate without ever creating anything of value. In contrast with a startup such as Kiva, the drive to fix real problems, make and impact and give to the community makes traditional business feel vain, and startups all the more inspiring.

Down to Earth

Hearing and meeting thought leaders such as Eric Schmidt, Paul Buchheit or Steve Blank gave me a lot of food for thought. I have yet to see a Nokia executive at a startup event; these people on the other hand were approachable, down to earth, and relaxed. The pursuit of quality people makes this a meritocracy. Quite the contrast with our local successes who tend to behave like suits. Talent takes precedence over nationality or title, which would explain why Loic Le Meur and Om Malik are so well integrated, and Carol Bartz isn’t.

Cultural Edge

We received better customer service from Taco Bell and the police department than from Stockmann, the top tier department store in Finland! One time, a bus driver was more comfortable at speaking than most startups I’ve heard pitching. It seems they are more comfortable with small talk with the customer.

This tendency to be more outspoken could also be seen in networking and pitching, where there was much less awkwardness than with Europeans. Though it rarely feels genuine, it certainly is more effective.

Bigger is Better

More events, money and startups, means more competition, making it all the more necessary to stand out by hiring outstanding people, being more ambitious, more risk-taking. Unsurprisingly, this seems to weed out the less passionate people, while encouraging others to put in sweat equity in their own ideas.

This is something I feel we Europeans aren’t very good at. It’s compelling to start in your home country rather than aiming big, because it feels safer. The last thing you want when you launch is to tailor to several languages, cultural differences, distribution channels and small blogs and other media. You can easily get complacent when you succeed in your own country, but if we mitigate risk, we place the odds against us from the start.

Access to Finance

The most striking difference was to see a fully fleshed out capital market, where hobbyist and professional angels, superangels, top tier VCs and smaller firms compete for the more attractive deals. This makes for a more fluid deal flow, with more standardized and competitive terms, with more contacts and experience on top.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there were more angels and VCs in the region than on the entire European continent. In 2009, business angels invested 160 times more than their counterparts in continental Europe. It is also unclear whether we have any superangels (e.g. we don’t). Like our startups, our VCs tend to aim locally or regionally. Many of them aren’t reviewed on TheFunded, so there is little track record to refer to. With major exits being few and far between, the amounts of money reinvested as well at the experience offered is less.

Still Insular

At times, the Valley feels like a bubble, its inhabitants sheltered from the real world. Foreign markets seem to be an afterthought, space for local startups and copycats. It is unclear whether foreign companies can realistically raise money from where they're at: though Accel invested in the Lithuanian company GetJar, and more recently Esther Dyson invested in Finnish Valkee, I was also told that some VCs would only invest in startups within a short drive.

U.S. legislation is not on the foreign entrepreneur’s side. For some odd reason, it is easier to get a visa by being hired, than by establishing a U.S. company and creating jobs. Hopefully, the Startup Visa can correct this in the near future. This process should be streamlined, as I believe many European startups have a lot to offer.

3 Choices

Silicon Valley is an unfair advantage for startups. Its ecosystem serves as an accelerator for world-class growth business. In comparison with Europe, lesser teams with lesser technology have access to more resources and will get further, faster. Ambitious European entrepreneurs face three choices: should we aim smaller and within our comfort zone, take greater risks in the Valley, or try the hard way in the old continent?

Photo by luigig

Business cycles and the essence of long-run economic growth are distinct issues. Preventing recessions is not the key to growth, as these are regrettable but unavoidable companions to an economy directed by a capital allocation process that is susceptible to systematic failure. Preventing the last failure is pretty irrelevant, because the next systematic failure will be different. Last I checked, only the US government is offering low-down payment loans, and no one offers no-documentation loans, so our government is not really helping here. As for creating growth via something new, if centralized governments could do that, the Soviet Union would still be around.

That decentralized, self-interested, people can collectively make such large errors seems irrational or corrupt to many, but they should remember that growing economies require people to be making things better, which means, new ways of doing things. New ideas are often wrong. Economics has gone onto intellectual cul-de-sacs many times (socialism, Keynesian macro models, input-output models, Hilbert spaces in finance, Arbitrage Pricing Theory, Kalman-filter macroeconomic models, etc.). Other scientific disciplines have their own mistakes, and political mistakes--stupid wars--are also common. These are rarely conspiracies, but rather, smart people making mistakes because the ideas that are true, important, and new, are really hard to discern, and tempting ones are alluring when lots of other seemingly successful people are doing it.

My Batesian Mimicry Theory posits that recessions happen because certain activities become full of mimics, entrepreneurs without any real alpha who got money from investors looking in their rear-view window of what worked and focusing on correlated but insufficient statistics. For example, people assumed a nationally diversified housing prices would not fall significantly in nominal terms, because they had not for generations; people assumed anything related to the internet would make them rich in the internet bubble, conglomerates would be robust to recession in 1970, that the 'nifty fifty' top US companies had Galbraithian power to withstand recessions in 1973, that cotton prices would not fall in 1837, etc.

As in ecological niches, there is no stable equilibrium with when mimics arise to gain the advantages of those with a real, unique and costly, comparative advantage. Every so often there are too many mimic Viceroy butterflies, not enough real poisonous Monarch ones, and a massive cataclysm occurs as predators ignore the unpleasant after-effects and start chomping on all of them. The Viceroy population grows until this devastating event occurs, a species recession. Next time, it won't happen in butterflies, but rather, among frogs or snakes. They key is, some ecological niche is always heading towards its own Mayan collapse (distinct from the 2012 Mayan apocolypse).

The key to wealth creation is doing less with more--destroying jobs at the micro level and creating jobs at the macro level by reallocating capital and labor to more valuable pursuits. The computer got rid of things from typesetters, secretaries, to engineers working with slide-rules, but these people didn't stay unemployed, they did something else, making the economic pie bigger. This is antithetical to government and unions who think creating a permanent 'job' creates productivity--stability at the micro level and stagnation at the macro level. Wealth is created by having decentralized decision-makers focused on simple goal of making money, which means, they oversee transactions where revenues collected are greater than expenses paid. If externalities are properly priced (I know, most liberal think this never happens), this implies value is created. The continual improvements in method (ie, productivity, wealth creation) merely maintain profits in a competitive environment; to do nothing would see their profits eaten away by competitors would could easily copy what they did and just undercut their prices.

The key to this is having managers who keep their workers focused. A good example is a story I heard second-hand about a football player for Minnesota Vikings in the 1970s. Coach Bud Grant called this marginal player into a meeting, and said, 'Here's what I need you to do...'. The player, an articulate fellow quite confident in himself, interrupted with an explanation of why he wasn't doing better and suggestions about how to correct it, mainly focused what others were doing wrong. Grant cut him off: 'You don't understand. This isn't a negotiation. Do what I'm telling you, and you have a role here. Otherwise, you don't.' Hierarchies only work well when people have clearly defined goals, and managers who manage their direct reports singlemindedly.

Private firms can do this much more quickly and often than government, and are rewarded with investment and retained earnings to the degree they do it well. When the government wants to do something, like build a light-rail system, it instead satisfies all its stakeholders who have no financial downside, only veto power, and so the cost/benefit calculus is almost irrelevant. The probability that benefits will outweigh costs when not prioritized is negligible, as highlighted by the fact that companies have to work very hard to make this positive when all those other considerations are ignored.

Thus, Minneapolis's light rail, at the cost of $1.1B for 12 miles of track, takes me longer to go downtown than a car because it stops 19 times at places no one wants to go because these 'hubs' were then sold as development opportunities, and an unusual number of ex-city councilmen are part owners of coffee shops and stores near these stops. Ridership does not even cover their marginal costs. It could have worked if they had an express train that went non-stop from end to end, but doesn't because it was not designed with the goal of making money, only the hope.

Good companies like Facebook, Apple and Google, have this sense of really understanding their users. Lots of simple things that making going to their sites and getting what you want. Their inferior competitors are relatively ugly, cluttered, and clunky. These generally weren't genius ideas like the ideas needed to create the first transistor, or Cantor's diagonal argument, in that there competitors had similar raw competence in these field, but it did take people looking to do things better than others, and decisive people who could empathize with their customers created really great things.

Robin Hanson had a neat article about the Myth of Creativity, where he criticizes Richard Florida's vision of bohemian lead productivity:

This is a Star Wars vision of innovation: "Feel the force, Luke; let go of your conscious self and act on instinct." And it is just as much a fantasy as that celluloid serial. Innovation is no more about releasing your inner bohemian than it is about holding hands, singing Kumbaya, and believing in innovation.

In truth, we don't need more suggestion boxes or more street mimes to fill people with a spirit of creativity. We instead need to better manage the flood of ideas we already have and to reward managers for actually executing them.

Sure, it's good to punish fraudsters, and be wary of the stupid ideas that were passed off as brilliant in the prior cycle (eg, Angelo Mozilo winning the American Banker's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2006, celebrated by politicians on the right and left, prized by Fannie Mae, and Harvard, is now an example of the 'unregulated predatory private sector'). But this is like learning not to put one's hand on a hot stove--good to know, but old news to most. Our priority at the top level should be to get out of the way, and so government should focus on its essential but limited perennial tasks as opposed to creating some new engine of growth. Leave that for the millions of people making sure millions of small changes are constantly made to daily procedures. Such changes do not require vision from politicians, subsidies, or tax breaks, but are rather the natural by product of people trying to make a buck. It's the standard Hayek/Friedman view of macroeconomics, and it's still the best description of how the complex adaptive system of our economy works.

surface encounters macomb surface encounters noblesville

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Making Money Ideas