investiledysfunction

The best definition I’ve heard of a business case is that “It’s the lie people tell to get funding.”  And that is the truth.  Growth is high and expenses are low leading to unreasonable expectations in the majority of business cases.  So what is the key to reducing the lies that people present in business cases.

It comes down to tracking what they deliver, e.g., benefits realization, tracking actuals, etc.  Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, has a good suggestion on this.  When talking about the New England Patriots videotaping opponents’ signals, he stated,

“The most important thing is to take decisive action.  We discovered that they were taping the signals of visiting coaches, which is against our rules, and we made very clear it was not going to be permitted. [Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500k and the team was fined $250k and denied a draft pick].  Sending a message that you’re going to enforce the rules is the best way to deal with integrity and make sure that our fans understand that games are going to be played by the rules.”

When it comes to investments in projects and initiativess, companies rarely hold folks accountable ensuring the cycle of lies and rosy projections continue.  Instead, they should take a page from Roger Goodell and reward those who deliver and ‘punish’ those who don’t.  The punishment can take the form of reduced funding going forward, greater oversight or even diminished responsibilities or dismissal.  Only by doing this will you ensure that people come with their best ideas and are incentivized to put forward their best ideas and deliver per their business case.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I’m addicted to CNBC in the morning.  It’s an unhealthy habit, but I find the talking heads on CNBC hilarious because of their extreme short-term’ism.  If you watched earlier this week, you got to see tons of folks predicting the bottom based on one day’s good performance.  Where were all these smart people to tell us about the bloody October we were going to have?  Oh wait, these guys are mostly Monday morning quarterbacks.  In any case, it’s a channel for those with A.D.D.  Insights are infrequent but for me, entertainment value is high esp with folks like Joe Kernan and the morning crew who seem to be in on the joke.

In any case, I was watching Donny Deutsch tonite (The Big Idea is one of the best shows on TV so check it out)  and he had Jim Cramer on.  Cramer is a massive personality and for me personally, his picks have done well for me.  On The Big Idea, he was talking about the economy, the market, etc, and it was pessimism to another level.

Per Cramer, those with entrepreneurial ambitions should put them on hold for the next few years.  While a good stock picker, I think this type of generic device is wrong.  What I think Cramer should have said is “Those with entrepreneurial ambitions that are half- or partially-baked should put them on hold forever.”

Per my earlier post on the downturn resulting in smarter startups, having a good idea that solves a real problem will always be in demand.  And being contrarian, e.g., when there is blood in the water, can be exactly the right time to start a business as talent may be cheaper, there may be cheap office space and computers available and you may be competing against a lot less fluff to get attention from partners, the press, etc.

As Warren Buffet says, “Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful.”

Josh Kopelman of First Round Capital put up a great quick website promoting the idea that technical talent (meaing those who know computer stuff) may want to consider a startup given the mess the banks and financial services are in.  The site’s master of the obvious title is Leave Wall Street - Join a Startup.  I’ve posted his points below which make a lot of sense and which would help ‘diversify’ NYC’s economy a bit although this would take many many years.  I remember the days of Silicon Alley (upto year 2000) as I worked at Kozmo.com.  Unfortunately, no significant businesses emerged from that as far as I can gather.  But here’s to hoping a Google can emerge out of NYC.

Financial services will always be huge in NYC, but introducing some other types of economy into the mix would only be healthy.  Remember, diversification is good.  The politicos seem to agree as well having recently started NYC Seed - an angel investment fund giving $200k to worthy business plans.

For those who aren’t familiar with Kopelman, he is best known for starting Half.com and selling it to eBay for $350 million.

Those who visit the site will also see Kopelman has posted positions at some of First Round Capital’s portfolio companies as well.  So besides making some good arguments, Kopelman has also found a good way to promote his companies and his interests in them.  This is very smart.

Here’s to the new NYC startup scene.   Kopelman’s comments are below:

For years, one of the biggest challenges facing New York city based startup companies has been the competition for technical talent.   It was very difficult for a venture-backed startup to compete with the compensation packages offered by the big investment banks.  Stock options had a hard-time overcoming oversized cash bonuses.

While no one is happy with the turmoil we’re seeing facing the financial services sector, and no one is happy to see mass layoffs, this does represent an opportunity for startup companies to attract seasoned, technical talent.  With Bear Stearns laying off over 7,000 employees, Lehman Brothers rumored to layoff over 20,000 employees, and Merrill Lynch expected to layoff thousands after their sale to Bank of America, we’re on track to see over 150,000 people lose their jobs this year.

If you are one of those 150,000 employees, you might want to consider joining a startup.  These days, startups are more stable than Wall Street (seriously).  And while a startup probably won’t offer the creature comforts of a job in the financial services industry, startups offer different benefits.  You get to participate in the creation of something new.  Your work makes a direct (and clear) impact on the success or failure of the company.  No more politics, endless meetings, or multi-layered organization structures.  Plus, you’ll likely get stock options to share the upside.

If interested in taking the plunge to the world of startups but you’re not in NYC, you can also search for startup opportunities in your country or city, check out ChubbyBrain’s advanced search feature here where you can specify your criteria.

I’m a big fan of P2P lending as my prior post on the topic will demonstrate and so I keep abreast of developments in this arena especially as I believe that this business has some very disruptive possibilities.  The last couple of weeks have seen some interesting developments, notably:

1. The entry of newcomer, Loanio, to the space.  Their pitch doesn’t all that different than Prosper, but I haven’t done much diligence on them so may be I’ll get around to that.  Their website is clean, but browsing a couple of posts, they seem to have a handful of loan requests but not a ton of bidders to this point willing to fund those initiatives.
2. The bigger news of the week is the departure of Zopa from the US market to focus on the UK, Japan and Italy.  While my first instinct was that they chose to avoid the crazy credit markets of the US, it seems they ran into regulatory roadblocks that prevented them from ever getting started.  This is surprising given they seem to have a much more seasoned team and more money than Prosper and Loanio, but I guess stuff happens.

If regulatory reasons were the impediment to them getting started in the USA, it is a shame.  With credit markets tighter now, there may have been an interesting opportunity for players like Prosper, Loanio, Zopa and LendingClub to step up and fill a void as many consumers and small businesses may be finding it difficult to get credit given tightening conditions.

If Zopa is leaving because they couldn’t take the heat in the US “credit kitchen” as some have suggested, this indicates the company has little faith in its risk modeling capabilities.  If you’re only willing to play in a market when you perceive times to be good, that is not much of a business.

Let’s hope it was just regulatory issues.  I hope the rest of the guys will make some inroads during this time and begin to put P2P lending on the map.

I’ve been reading about how Silicon Valley is adjusting to the downturn as it’s a popular topic in many blogs.  Many prominent VCs have issued memos to the CEOs of their portfolio companies telling them to raise more money, control expenses and focus on profitability because things are going to be rough for the foreseeable future.  This is all pretty good advice.  Of course, the sinister, conspiracy theorists amongst those I’ve read feel this is an easy way to instill fear and get better valuations for VCs.  I’m not so skeptical so as to believe this.

But the outcome from this recession/downturn from an entrepreneurship and innovation perspective is going to be positive in my view for 2 reasons:

Reason 1 - As I mentioned in my Part 1 post, there are going to be a lot of unemployed or disillusioned people who say “I’m going to invest in myself instead of getting a job or investing in the stock market”.  These people will pursue new ideas, develop new technologies and will start new companies.  Out of this might emerge a few great companies and many more which will employ people and inspire even more entrepreneurs.

Reason 2 - This shakeout is going to get rid of a lot of crap ideas and companies.  There is no other way to say this.  Many of the “me too”  social networks or “iPhone/Facebook app” developers hoping to generate a userbase that they’d one day magically figure out how to ‘monetize’ may not make it.  They won’t make it not because they don’t have a cool idea that is fun and even potentially useful, but because many of these businesses were “built to flip” as a friend of mine at a prominent Sand Hill Road VC once commented.  And so they were never predicated on a real business model that could bring in more revenue than the dollars they spend.  This is a risky proposition and unfortunately, and such businesses don’t allow you to make it up in volume.

And while some of these ideas were marginally useful or fun as I mentioned, I also don’t know if they were solving real problems, e.g., building stuff that people really needed or finding a better way to do something that enough people cared about.

So what we’ll see in my estimation is the bar will get raised and better ideas will emerge and a new crop of more well-conceived startups will come forward.  With VC funding tightening up, entrepreneurs will need to do this.  Things that solve really big problems and that are built with an eye towards becoming sustainable businesses which are lean, mean and profitable are what will come into vogue.  A dollar and a dream may not be enough but a dollar, a dream and some serious discipline will be required.

In essence, for every Facebook, there will be many others that don’t have the backing to make it through the next several years.  And honestly, even if they did, being the social network for ex-convicts was never going to be that big (sorry guys).  I do think that many of these smart people who don’t make it out of this cycle will come back with better, tighter, more refined ideas the next time around, and this type of cycle is healthy.  Of course, this all only holds until the next bubble.

I had dinner with a good friend who works at a hedge fund this past week, and after we discussed the markets and our views on where things are going (sorry we didn’t come up with an answer), he made an interesting comment that struck me.  He felt that this downturn may be a good thing for the US economy for the long-term.  His logic was pretty simple.

• A lot of very smart people over the last many many years moved into careers in finance because it was lucrative and was seen as a path to quick riches.
• Back in the day, there was a similar belief about becoming a doctor for instance but it was not a “quick path” but one that existed for the best and brightest after many years of hard work.
• With this being a potentially protracted downturn, some of the current and many more from the next generation of smart people may go back to pursuing careers which in his words “are not just about trading paper”.  This means more innovation, entrepreneurship, etc from smart people trying to solve real problems.

I found this perspective quite interesting coming from someone in the hedge fund world - especially someone who is successful at it.  I also agree with him. Finance companies (banks, hedge funds, etc) have had a voracious appetite for PhDs and smart people in general who’ve helped them build complex derivatives and the like.  This downturn/recession may mean less of these people are inclined to go into or stay in finance and if this happens, they may look elsewhere, e.g., in science and math disciplines either with employers or in research organizations (mainly universities).  This is a good thing as it can lead to ideas and innovations that drive the next great wave.

I’ve seen this migration to finance firsthand.  I graduated from the Jerome Fisher Program in Management & Technology (M&T) at the University of Pennsylvania which is a dual degree program between Wharton and Penn’s Engineering school.  As I’ve met alumni from the program over the years, it has become apparent that fewer and fewer of us went down the engineering route in our careers (I’m guilty on this count).  The early graduates of the program were more likely to have worked in engineering fields for at least some time while with the more recent grads, most have sought to go down the business (especially finance) with a belief that their training from engineering would always be valuable.

It’s obvious that these types of attitudinal and structural shifts don’t happen overnight, but if some small segment of the smart people who previously pursued careers in the world of finance move towards entrepreneurship and innovation, this is a good thing for us in America as well as globally.

This doesn’t mean the finance types go away nor should they.  Someone will have to extend credit and funding to these entrepreneurs, right?