Skip to content


The looming exit bubble of 2012

There seems to be another front on the horizon. The weather may circle in, but you can never predict these patterns with precision, on or around 2012. While some of the troubling elements are being monitored, some others are not. This following one has been noticed and reported, most recently in the New York Times: A substantial increase in corporate debt maturities could rough up high-yield markets around the 2012-2014 timeframe, which surge could test credit capital liquidity and is prone to exert significant upward pressure on borrowing spreads. Here is something else, of a related nature and analogous consequence, that is less noticed: The surge in venture capital fund-raising of the 2005-2007 era will come to be 5-7 years old in 2012, and this is the typical age at which private investment funds enter their wind-down mode. Approximately $100 billion was raised during those three years. (A similar surge occurred in private equity in the 2007-2008 period, which will celebrate its 5-year anniversary around 2012-2013 as well. This article deals mainly with the venture category, recognizing that the two fields are not unrelated.)

The wind-down of this 2005-2007 venture class vintage, (ignoring for now the potentially competing wind-down of the 2007-8 private equity vintage), could present a serious problem for the system, and by system I mean much more than the private investing community strictly speaking. In my previous post I touched on the relationship between public equity markets and strategic M&A as the two principal “exit” alternatives for venture capitalists. When the IPO market is not there to keep M&A honest, as it were, exit valuations suffer. Let’s now imagine an environment in which (a) corporate credit is squeezed for reasons previously referenced, (b) higher borrowing costs reduce equity values and at the same time push the relative risk and return balance further towards debt and away from equity (from an investor’s standpoint), (c) the IPO environment as a result slows down or stalls, (d) the corporate M&A environment (reflecting all factors listed) slows down, and (e) venture capital, unable to realize liquidity events commensurate with funds raised, cause their limited partners to suffer losses that exacerbate these challenges, beginning with item (a) onward.

The scenario is not dissimilar to that of late 2008 and into 2009, through which venture capitalists battled – some more and some less successfully – and are still here to tell the story. But there is one important difference: In 2008 and 2009, these funds were largely at the 1-4 year anniversaries of existence – basing this generalization on the heavy fundraising concentrations of the 2005-2007 period, as described – and the need to exit was not yet pressing. We may wonder what the now-infamous Sequoia slide deck could look like in 2012 or thereabouts, if merely slamming the breaks on new capital outlays does not even address the issue: if the goal at that point is no longer just to preserve liquidity, but to return capital.

Perhaps the scenario is overstated. The venture capital (and private equity) segment will not be on the clock at precisely January 1, 2012, to immediately begin liquidating. Unlike corporate debt, venture capital contains maturities of different kinds, and private investment funds have some flexibility built into their structures for the timing of wind-downs. Moreover, the total committed capital of these vehicles would not necessarily have been invested by the time of liquidation. But $100 billion raised by VCs in a 3-year period is no joke, and even on an adjusted basis constitutes serious exiting to do. As this could take a while to accomplish, and as 2012 may be marked by an assortment of other capital market strains, as noted, an orderly liquidation may not be a bad idea: beginning now.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Capital markets commentary, Of interest to entrepreneurs.

Tagged with , , , , .


Not yet ready for an IPO

The public market is for grown-ups, for companies that can support themselves. Directly or indirectly, all growing companies arrive at the public market. It’s an initiation, and what takes place on arrival is critical. The steps to that point follow a sequence more or less like this one: An entrepreneur develops a new business platform… The entrepreneur requires capital for his idea to evolve… Venture capital investors consider financing the opportunity… A venture capital syndicate funds the project… The business plan is implemented, corrected, executed, modified, grown, and etc… The venture capitalists want their money out and seek to “exit,” pursuing M&A and IPO options… The M&A market looks to the IPO market to benchmark a valuation, qualify interest, and determine the seller’s true alternatives… The public market responds.

If this market is receptive and constitutes a viable exit option for the venture group, then we can reverse the sequence, starting with good public market response… to an upright M&A market… to venture funds that realize successful exits (using either option)… to venture funds that have the resources and courage to make new investments… to entrepreneurs who can efficiently raise capital for their ideas… to innovation and business building as a lucrative pastime for entrepreneurs. If, however, the IPO market fails us, then revisit the same order one by one for a less desirable set of circumstances. A lot depends on the public markets, and all involved are watching closely.

Now, the public market is very particular, and much of what digital media has to offer nowadays does not fully resonate there. Unlike the private, in which deals are done and values are set in ways that are sometimes beyond science – a story that strikes a chord with a certain individual, a story that fits a certain theme at a certain time, a CEO who knows the cousin of the man in charge, a syndicate that picks up newcomers because of the syndicate’s composition – the public market is more rigid and yet more volatile. The story is important, but the CEO’s cousin less so. And even the story has its limits, as public investors could at any moment be distracted by some other. There is no shortage of stories among thousands of tradable securities, and this market would appreciate it if you would get to the point and highlights:

What is the market cap, what is the float, what is the valuation benchmark and how does this relate to a broader peer group, how do next quarter’s earnings look… Monthly uniques, you say? Yea right, that’s good, whatever…  A new “retweet” button integrated with geolocation social mapping that tracks back to a family tree? If you say so, sure, you know your business best, but what’s the EPS bump from that in fiscal 2011?… For grown-ups, like I said, and no messing around.

With this in mind, where are the answers going to come from in digital media? The sector leaders – those companies that should serve (if you will) as mature role models – are still in a state of infancy. Twitter has no official business model, let alone sustainable revenues, let alone profit. Facebook has revenues and profit, but nothing that would rationally justify its private market value in a public transaction as the company continues to iterate and set new goals and try to figure out what it will be when it grows up. Even on the public side of the playground, GOOG is busy not being evil and goodness knows what else is keeping GOOG busy anymore. AOL is busy transforming itself. YHOO is busy keeping its head low and avoiding the others.

Until these bigger boys begin to demonstrate some of the qualities that make for successful grown-up companies, the public markets could remain less than reliable for all. And projects of lesser presence than Twitter may underwhelm their sponsors in need of exits. Leadership is important in all realms, even in whole sectors. We continue to look.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Capital markets commentary, Of interest to entrepreneurs, Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , .


The dwindling shelf life of web traffic

“Actually I haven’t read a single article. I don’t want to read them. I see a wall of text and I just look at the picture and click next.” Thus Andrey Ternovskiy, the Russian high school student who is the creator of web sensation, Chatroulette, in a New York Times interview published yesterday. The remark is taken out of context, being as it was in response to a question about the media attention he and his service have been receiving. But the part of the statement that to me seems most interesting, regardless of context, and perhaps characteristic of the service itself, is the end: “… and click next.” There is an impatience reflected in it, a lack of pause, that is consistent with the concept of a video chat room in which each random participant can turn off any other participant instantly, and apparently does so more often than not, click/next.

Whether or not the concept of surfing the web in this fashion – taken to the level of surfing people – has any broader significance, is an interesting question to consider. (See, for example, this recently closed Guggenheim Museum exhibit in which the art consisted of strangers striking up brief conversations with museum-goers as they spiraled up the ramp. Is there a parallel between Chatroulette and such modern art?) Regardless of how deeply you want to delve into the subject, however, the briefness of interaction, the flightiness and inconsequence of visits, the speed and impatience, draw attention to an evolution that I believe is occurring in media and entertainment. If viewership, audience, traffic, to a given web destination can for purposes of argument be thought of as “inventory” – in the sense of such inventory being offloaded to advertisers as valuable commercial goods – this asset then has an increasingly brief “shelf life.”

Mashable published a noteworthy overview of Twitter’s traffic patterns the other day. Based on the somewhat arbitrary but reasonable definition that “an active or ‘true’ Twitter user has at least 10 followers, follows at least 10 people and had tweeted at least 10 times,” only 21% of Twitter users are active users. According to the same analysis, 34% of users have never sent out a single tweet, and almost all of the messaging found on the Twitter service is the product of roughly one quarter of the user base. Regardless of how Twitter defines its business model, as it presumably will soon, its enterprise value is predicated on a voluminous web presence. While that may be, the quality of “inventory” is as significant as its quantity in any analysis.

I am further reminded of a blog article that drew much attention a few weeks ago, in which the author asserted that certain web entrepreneurs are more astute in the ways of generating traffic than others. Without getting into the details of such tricks and secret recipes of traffic accumulation – most of which are surely familiar terrain to the most popular consumer facing web services (e.g., FacebookZynga) – it is legitimate to wonder about the value of the massive inventory that has been accumulated, and whether it is grossly “overstated,” to keep to the accounting terminology. If we are talking about some meaningful fraction of users who visit a site by accident, by hacking, or merely out of fleeting curiosity, as hundreds of millions of other such random individuals seem to be visiting a site, we have to wonder how sustainable such an audience really is. Surely there will be an eventual finality to the number of random and accidental viewers that may stumble upon a given website even once.

For additional thoughts about enterprise valuation and how the concept of “perpetuity” fits in, see here.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , .


Apple and newspapers: one hand will wash the other

“Don’t charge for your wares, and experiment, experiment, experiment.” Thus Google’s advice to newspapers, paraphrasing. Of course, when your dozens of no-charge experiments – for example, Wave and Buzz – are underpinned by a cash engine that is a near monopoly which never slows, it is possible to dole out such advice with a straight face. It would moreover be irresponsible and a potential cause for shareholder litigation if any other advice were to be given, considering that every free-of-charge newspaper experimentation – at least the kind suggested by Google – would add to the search engine’s traffic. Well done.

At least for the near term, this self-serving position by Google is the right thing for Google. (And there is nothing wrong with self-interest, by the way, as long as it is unabashed, unapologetic, and to the point: I salute Google on all counts.) But in the longer term, newspapers will not survive as what essentially amounts to be high-tech blogs that offer access to games and social nets – which I believe is the suggestion – because there are places on the web that give us bells and whistles pretty efficiently already. In the long term, Google’s advice is bad for Google as well, because a healthy newspaper segment could be a good source of commerce, and Google’s advice would cause this segment to disintegrate. The place for newspapers remains in professional content, quality product, that readers can trust for being well researched and polished. This does not mean that newspapers should get out of the web business, but  they must be careful to protect the core asset as migration occurs.

For starters, newspapers should consider (I suspect they already have) this statistic provided by Business Insider as its “Stat of the Day” last evening. No less than 63% of mobile web consumption is performed on Apple’s iPhone. This statistic is particularly noteworthy considering that the iPhone’s share of the smartphone market is only 25%, to Blackberry’s 42%. (Google’s Android is way down at the bottom, with 5%, but rising.) As a Blackberry owner, I can easily imagine why iPhone users are online so much more than owners of a more popular device. The browsing experience on the iPhone’s larger screen is no doubt pleasurable, while trying to read the content of a website on my teaspoon-sized Blackberry interface is not. With the magazine-sized iPad set to launch in a matter of weeks, that pleasurable experience will only increase. And at least one mobile service sees the iPad as a boon for wireless usage. It is probable that newspapers are mindful of these stats and these perspectives.

In a previous post I commented about the edge that Apple maintains in its competition for consumers’ entertainment attention, reflecting its CEO’s unique Hollywood background. (I would also point to Steve Jobs’s unique background in calligraphy, which he described with great eloquence in his Stanford commencement address some years back.) Apple understands design, presentation, style, and features that consumers will pay for. While others may have a good grasp on utility and “experimentation,” Apple has taste. While others may offer an efficient web experience, for free, Apple has figured out how to extract a premium price for a commodity product, and owns one of the few entertainment platforms that has consistently sold its goods into a mass market that is otherwise accustomed to free access.

Newspaper and magazine owners, who are struggling to redefine their business models for a new online and mobile environment, would probably be well served to align themselves with the platform that can offer a revenue model, and a mobile marketplace, and leave the experimentation and iteration stuff to young entrepreneurs and startups that do not yet have a franchise to protect. Rather than betting the future almost completely on an open-web presence that may or may not be competitive, these groups should focus on the production and maintenance of quality apps that can be accessed, at a price, in mobile app stores – the most populous of which is Apple’s.

Much has been said about the iPad and its ability to “save traditional media.” In the long term, it will be in traditional media’s interest to support a successful iPad. Style, design, quality control, are all characteristics that will do much more to facilitate the popularity of paid content than one more colorful website that may or may not show up at the top of Google’s search results.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , , , .


The couch is the new battlefront

Mobile, schmobile. Few people carry a smartphone, but every home contains a couch. God’s sake, don’t quote me on that.

Observers of the tech scene were shaken with disbelief noticing spiritual idol, Steve Jobs, among the glitterati last Sunday at the Oscars. What has always been a night of prime Hollywood superficiality and old-fashioned gossip, was infiltrated by the squeaky-clean and digital, the perfectly featured iPad between sets, and its commandant between panting agents. I, however, am almost as shaken by a different sight entirely: Google knocking at the doors of dens and living rooms everywhere – a last enclave of television where we can sit for five minutes without a Google search box to remind us that there is much investigating still to do – inserting its technology into Dish set-top boxes. And of course, this is only the beginning. The two events are undoubtedly related.

Most of us would be likely to forget that, in some ways, Steve Jobs is as much a part of the Hollywood community as he is of San Francisco. But we should not need a cameo appearance at the Academy Awards to remind us. Jobs was, after all, the CEO of Pixar and is currently the single largest shareholder of Walt Disney. He is not only on the company’s board, but is actively involved in the management of the Disney/Pixar combined animation business. (Here is an even more interesting piece of trivia, based on very cursory and approximate web research (using Google): Jobs’s dollar ownership of Disney, based on recent market caps, exceeds his dollar ownership of Apple.)

There has always been a distinction in the media world between entertainment and information, as much as there has been a separation between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, and, for that matter, New York. If the open web is about speed and efficiency and completeness of information – in short, utilitarian functionality – then Apple has always been about style: controlled design, premium and highly architected content. If the open web is about Google, then Apple is no doubt about Hollywood and New York: film studios, magazines, music. All those things for which consumers still pay, not on the basis of speed or efficiency or information flow, but on the basis of pleasure, quality, enjoyment.

In the iPad commercial that ran during the Oscars this weekend, we saw image after image depict home relaxation. We did not see a mobile use of the product on the go, and we did not see an office use where the likely need is news or some other information. We saw private individuals kick back in an armchair, on a couch, in a living room or elsewhere inside a residential setting, with an iPad on their lap. We saw them use their iPad in the same setting in which we now read magazines, watch rented movies, listen to music on speakers, and consume cable television. This was the same posture, incidentally, in which Jobs sat as he presented the iPad on stage at its first launch.

This association of Apple products and relaxed entertainment has been years in the making. iTunes, after all, which dominates the music business, is central to the iPod experience, and the iPod was the precursor of the iPhone, which is the precursor of the iPad. During the same period of time that Apple was systematically immersing itself into entertainment and leisure, Google was establishing itself as the platform of choice in the realm of open web traffic with superior utility. These are two entirely different worlds, two entirely different consumption profiles, which require entirely different tactics, entirely different modes of approach.

If Apple has never tried to offer a search product of its own, if Apple has never presented itself as primarily utilitarian, there is a reason. The CEO’s Hollywood education has undoubtedly taught him about consumer behavior and taste, and that consumers approach premium content and utilitarian functionality in different moods. It is easy to understand why Google would look to expand into television, particularly as cable access and web video are becoming increasingly intertwined. But there may be a culture clash ahead for the search giant, which will make the den a more difficult place for Android to break into than the open streets on the go.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , .


Other recommendations for you (3)

This was going to be the time that I write my recommendations for you about movies, to coincide with the Oscars, and I guess a promise is a promise even if I’m late. But I can’t get inspired to comment about a plastic blue guy in three dimensions and the assortment of extreme reality and melodrama that competed with said computer-generated fantasy for top artistic honors. “It made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me choke up with a myriad of emotions. In 3D, just like life!” Meh. There actually were three movies I enjoyed this season: Tarantino’s World War Two spoof, the Coen brothers’ wry comedy about suburban angst, and Fantastic Mr. Fox. That last one, as is often the case when Wes Anderson has a new release, may be my favorite. But I’m not really in the mood to critique this year’s product.

I’m in the mood for older fare, having returned from a successful shopping expedition at the Strand, where I picked up a stack of $0.48 paperbacks – some real finds, almost incredible really, the extra-brown sort that’s been tossed around from room to room and down stairwells for decades – and a couple of higher-end $1 ones with pages that actually don’t crumble like dust, before crossing the street to Second Hand Rose to leaf through the mint-condition vinyls. Yes sir, that’s what I call an afternoon! And it really put me in the mood for some Sergio Leone.

Those western operas, those desert soundtracks and triangular shoot-outs, those extended silences until a raindrop falls like a cannonball. Clint Eastwood’s dry humor as the Man with no Name. Charles Bronson’s harmonica that always presages vengeance. Lee Van Cleef’s disarming smile before he fires. Eli Wallach, the lovable crook. A Fistful of Dollars. For a Few Dollars More. The Good, the Bad and the UglyOnce Upon a Time in the West. Henry Fonda, who never before or since played a villain, as the amoral gang leader whose eyes seem to weep but are really full of cold and recklessness.

These may not top the best-of lists and catalogues, but if you rent them on DVD one evening – in lieu of a night out to see Avatar with glasses – the money you’ll save will protect your downside for taking my word. It’s an easy gamble, I think, a calculated risk. And now, if you’ll excuse me, I must sign off to watch the red carpet show on E!.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Books, music, and other recommendations.

Tagged with , .


You better be nice, San Francisco

Bubbles don’t happen because valuations are high. Bubbles happen because valuations are in excess of what business fundamentals can reasonably justify. As the word implies, a bubble occurs when that which is solid is supplanted by air. Thus, it is quite possible for bubbles to occur even in a low valuation environment.

I remain fascinated, and not entirely in a positive way, by the continuing debate over that which defines the San Francisco web ecosystem as opposed to that of New York. That San Franciscans want to “change the world” while New Yorkers are all caught up in financial statements was last week’s entertainment. There is a new installment on the airwaves now, as exemplified by this blog commentary from yesterday’s press, according to which New York is not sophisticated enough to even understand practical matters. The author points – and I detect some pride – to a dark underbelly of west coast media entrepreneurship, in which web traffic procurement is a matter of tricks and wizardry, secret buttons, “secret sauce,” invading the contact lists of unsuspecting emailers, (dare I say, hacking), and such other stuff that would make New Yorkers, apparently, blush. (In this morning’s headlines, a long profile piece on Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg would support the case presented, although Zuckerberg’s roots were in stately Boston. Nevertheless, he is in San Francisco now, and a staple of the local culture.) In short, San Francisco has us beaten in matters of idealism as well as brass-knuckled dark-alley affairs.

I don’t know about idealism and changing the world; I suppose that when for a century a place has been the center of the world’s artistic, economic, and political scene, the stuff just happens and we tend not to think about it much. With regard to our street savvy being questioned, however, I take offense, recalling Times Square before it was cleaned up and Disneyfied. Perhaps New Yorkers do indeed blush more easily since Giuliani, I haven’t conducted studies, but I can’t believe our heritage would come to ruin, to be slighted for our lack of smarts and belittled for naivete. I can’t believe that centuries of feisty Horatio Algers, crowds, advertisements, big lights, theaters, magazines, television, Madison Avenue, have fallen to a point of irrelevance, because there is a secret to new media that is so profound, so dark, so unfathomable, that only San Francisco gets it.

I am reminded of a time, back in the late 90s, when another hot communications sector called wireless was coming into its own. This gave rise to a new asset class called communication towers: you’ve seen the ugly metal things on highways and in suburban yards. It being a new asset class, it being the late 90s, it being Wall Street, tower developers were strongly encouraged by capital markets to erect as many of these, as quickly as possible. Naturally, there was a rush to do so in Texas, where space is ample and zoning restrictions nil. In short, tower portfolios were created, as ordered, but there was a bubble… because numbers alone don’t matter if there is no underlying business, and there is no underlying business for towers that are ten feet apart in the middle of nowhere. I exaggerate to make a point, but that story did not end well, and my recounting it should not be taken as a digression.

Back to the web’s entrepreneurial cleverness and the dark underbelly referenced… we should consider the following: Not all traffic is quality traffic, not all advertising impressions are quality impressions, fabricated audience is not sustainable, and substance sooner or later does matter. Perhaps this is my patriotic pride as a New Yorker acting out, but our media community benefits from a uniquely rich tradition and history lessons that should not be discounted. There is a culture of making real money here in media, with real advertising and real subscriptions to a real audience, and it is wrong to dismiss this age-old presence and knowledge-base as trivial or inferior somehow. Advertising revenue in media is not a thing of the past, and neither is subscription revenue. At some point, one of these two economic modes has to bear fruit, even for Twitter, and that is more likely to occur in New York than elsewhere.

Until then, and all kidding aside, entrepreneurs on both coasts will have to adapt to an ultimate reality: capital is necessary for what you do, and VCs don’t have your backs without exits… M&A will not pay top-dollar without an IPO market to prop it up… Wall Street is New York, not San Francisco, and you will not IPO until New York says it’s ok to do so. You better be nice to us, San Francisco, and brush up on our ways more than you have. Facebook is starting to learn.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Capital markets commentary, Of interest to entrepreneurs, Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , , , .


Unlocking value through simplification

The media market has never been larger. The products offered by media have never been more various and exciting. And yet advertising, which has always been media’s revenue engine, has been hurting. I do not believe this phenomenon is strictly a matter of economic cycle. While media has never been more exciting, advertising has never been more complex.

The parallels between media and its advertising sub-sector are long-standing, and there may not be another sub-segment that more perfectly reflects the state of the broader industry. Advertising and media go hand in hand, each depending on the other. In past times, when media was dominated by the traditional and analog, Madison Avenue was quaint and full of artisanship. (I know, I know, but bear with me.) The effectiveness of advertising was measured through an assortment of surveys, studies, “ratings,” that were not doubted (be patient) even if the science of these was subject to interpretation. It was (more or less) a matter of trust, and there was a sort of clubbiness in the dynamic, in which advertisers, agencies, and publishers all participated. Today, as the analog handshake of traditional media is being replaced by the digital interaction of the web, advertising is becoming technical, more mechanic, algorithmic, hugely complex, and not necessarily more effective. One thing is sure: the advertising model is more difficult to explain, and trust is out of the picture completely.

I was just the other day conversing with a friend about the confusing mess that advertising has become in the last few years, and we each took comfort from the other’s shared state of confusion. Luckily, neither of us is in advertising, but we sympathize. I had a similar discussion with another acquaintance later, and the gist was the same. So here I had been thinking that I was on my own not “getting” it all this time, and in two discussions I uncovered two allies. That’s a percentage of 100. A survey of two is not exactly a market study, this is no Arbitron or Nielsen report after all, and one should not rush to conclusions… but I suspect there are lots of us out there.

So to my great excitement and opinion validation, I came across this article in Business Insider, authored by a senior editor of Advertising Age no less. Here is a representative passage: ”The space between advertiser and publisher has become jam-packed over the last decade, with literally hundreds of ad networks, data companies, yield managers, ad servers and exchanges all purporting to serve advertisers or publishers in some unique way; but all have their own business models that may or may not be adding value to either.” Thank you!

This mess has to be cleaned up if the media sector is to live up to its potential. When one of two revenue sources for media is bogged down by the chaos described, while the other is driven by direct customer payments (i.e., subscriptions and variants thereof) in an increasingly free environment, that cannot be a healthy situation for sector economics. And it isn’t strictly a matter of economic value – although the same AdAge article argues that publishers only see $1 for every $5 of advertising sold – but also one of business soundness and, frankly, morale. With so much algorithm, intermediation, digital chaos, and lack of understanding separating the publisher and the advertiser, is it possible for either one to appreciate the other? For either one to even hear the other? For either one to see the point of the other? I entertain doubts, but that being as it may, the numbers tell a story that cannot be denied.

With all this in mind, however, a powerful case can be argued that we are at a market bottom. As the complexity described is more likely to abate than to increase, just looking at the matter relatively, there should be economic upside built into the very simplification that will happen. The question is one of time, and letting the process run its course. For those who are more inclined to take charge rather than wait, here is a call to action: Google’s advertising product, embarrassingly simple, drives revenue that has never stopped growing, in any cycle.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , .


Space exploration in the atom

There is an interview with Peter Thiel in Wired, in which the PayPal co-founder and first Facebook investor makes an interesting case for new outlets of invention, new growth vehicles in a global economy that is in jeopardy for lack of growth. These new fields, according to Thiel, can no longer be Internet reliant because the Internet is tapped out. Thiel’s perspective is notable, especially in the context of the last hundred years of economic evolution. “The Internet may be culturally important,” he says, “just as the automobile was culturally more important in the ’50s than the ’20s, as we got suburbia and built the Interstate Highway System. But the last successful car company started in the US was Jeep in 1941… Obviously we’ve done well online. But how much more progress is there going to be? How many big new Internet companies are there? In the ’90s we had Netscape, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon. In the past eight years there have been only two: Google and Facebook. [Possibly Twitter.] Still, the numbers suggest a maturing industry.”

With this in mind, Thiel has been thinking about the next stage of evolution, a necessary and urgent undertaking in his view. According to Thiel’s perspective, it is imperative that the historically unprecedented growth of the past century continue, not only for economic reasons but also for political stability. Such new growth areas, he believes, are to be found in the science fiction novels of the mid-20th century, and he is currently looking into space programs as an example. (I am reminded of a blurb from William Burroughs, who preceded Thiel by several decades: “The only thing that could unite the planet is a united space program…”) But anyway.

This Wired interview, though very brief, and probably incomplete in capturing Peter Thiel’s philosophy, was nevertheless thought-provoking on many levels. The maturation of the web sector and considerations associated with such maturation have been observed in this column often, most recently here and here. Two even more interesting ideas, however, which Thiel’s comments bring to mind, are that the breathless pace of innovation and expansion must continue, lest we suffer consequences more dire than a stagnating economy, and that we have put ourselves in this predicament. I don’t know if such a perspective is valid or excessive, but I hope it is the latter because acceleration cannot continue into perpetuity, and it would be unhealthy, I think, for most of us to try.

We have, nonetheless, lived through an era from which such notions, such enormous perspectives, ambitions, and the suggestion of mind-numbing consequences, can emerge. (Whether or not venture capitalists should try to “change the world” is actually a subject of debate today.) It is difficult, in contrast, to imagine a discussion about the necessity of space travel and investing to change the world in, say, the 1970s, let alone the 1870s, let alone the 1470s. Stepping back for perspective: It took millennia for Machiavelli, Spinoza, and other Renaissance thinkers to build upon the lessons of ancient predecessors, while it’s been a mere hundred years since we were driving in horse-drawn carriages and did not know about typewriters. And yet, here we are, feeling the urgency of space travel because we have come up with PayPal.

Perhaps there is a more plausible path to the future than one that involves enormous goals for which we may not yet be ready. Perhaps a more sensible path, rather than trying to climb swiftly onward to some ever-higher rung before we have even had a chance to absorb our own progress, may be to perfect that which remains only half-finished. Surely there is tremendous growth potential in that alone. Consider: PayPal is still known to malfunction, Facebook is still burdened by snags, venture capital is still a broken asset class, Toyota cars are unreliable, and the “great American novel” has not yet been written, not even by the visionary Burroughs.

I will throw this out there only as a thought – because the subject is far too complex for any definitive conclusion in a little blog article – but perhaps the thing that will lead us more naturally and more manageably into the future, is more pedestrian than conquering the universe: Maybe the solution lies simply in a job well done. We still have a very long way to go.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Books, music, and other recommendations, Capital markets commentary, Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , , .


Trust, and protecting the house

Communication, like banking, is predicated on trust. When trust is breached, the system fails. The safekeeping and efficient commerce of trust determine the robustness of the house, the reliability of the system, even in matters of nuance and degree. The trust that differentiates reportage, advertising, and propaganda, is relative in the same sense that risk is relative in various forms of investment. When a high-risk investment, however, is presented as a secure loan, this is a breach of trust that jeopardizes the integrity of the bank. This breach may trigger a bank run and potential collapse, reflecting large scale distrust among depositors. The same is true with matters of communication.

Three headlines in this morning’s news serve as reminders of the issue: (1) From WiredIPad Apps Could Put Apple in Charge of the News. This is a mildly hysterical piece, (which leads me to distrust Wired as being aligned with Google), suggesting that Apple would use its platform to act as censor. (2) From Mashable: Facebook Secures Patent for News Feed. Implications remain unknown, but the headline is not an understatement. We are talking about the news feed, which in principle now belongs to a relatively untested protector of the world-wide late-breaking. (3) From Forbes: Google And The Law. On the heels of the widely publicized ruling in an Italian court to hold Google executives personally accountable for users’ content uploaded to YouTube, the issue of web openness vs. censorship is debated.

What each of these three headlines highlights is that the Internet and its principal hubs are maturing and no longer mere youthful distractions. Even in matters of personal media consumption or utilization, (i.e., the social web), which will not necessarily shake up the newswires, the issues of trust, security, and integrity, cannot be ignored. In some ways, these issues play an even more important role in the social web, in which personal sensitivity is at stake. And when media companies begin to dabble in news (reportage), commercial media (advertising), and private communication, simultaneously, the risks and sensitivities are not dissimilar to those of universal banking that becomes active in everything from checking accounts to emerging markets hedge funds to private equity to sub-prime credit derivatives. The entire house is vulnerable to the point of highest risk.

Case study in real-time: Google and its vulnerability to Buzz. Should we begin to distrust Google on account of its lax rollout of a social product that mishandled our personal information, should Google be moreover perceived as insensitive to such issues, then this matter of breached trust can quickly extend to other parts of the enterprise. Google Docs and Google Apps, for example, both predicated on the upload of private documents into Google’s cloud, could lose credibility. But this would be a minor thing, because it wouldn’t hit Google where it hurts most: Search. Producing almost 100% of its profits, this product, which is really an advertising directory, is entirely dependent on our continued trust that results are wholesome and precise.

So, when in the aftermath of the Buzz fiasco we begin to see articles like this one, and blogs like this other, highlighting the enormous complexity and sophistication of Google’s search foundation, and the meticulous seriousness with which the company treats this engine, we recognize the propaganda’s motive. If Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, can fall, then Google may not be immune. At the very least, market share may be lost, and chunks of stock price. And if Google is not immune, there are much lesser houses at risk. The Internet is no longer a toy, and the stakes are grown-up stakes now.

  • Share/Bookmark

Posted in Sector news and commentary.

Tagged with , , , , , .