Posts from Wall Street

I'd like to tie together two posts and make a final point on Sustainability.

In my first post for the Sustainability class, I wrote:

Clay Christensen talks about this kind of thing all the time. Big company executives are asked to calculate an return on investment (ROI) on the investments they want to make. If the ROI isn't greater than some minimum hurdle, the company doesn't make the investment. And so along comes a smaller competitor who makes the investment and they eat the big company's lunch.

ROI is not the right framework for companies to evaluate investments. ROI is for the wall street folks. They will use it to decide if they want to invest in your company. But when you make investment decisions in your company, don't use the tools that wall street uses. Use the tools that animals use. Survival instincts. What will it take to ensure that your company is around in ten years, fifty years, 100 years? That's how to think if you want to stay in business.

And then the man himself, Clay Christensen, went and wrote a post for the NY Times yesterday which I highlighted in yesterday's What I Am Reading post. Clay wrote:

So we taught our students how to magnify every dollar put into a company, to get the most revenue and profit per dollar of capital deployed. To measure the efficiency of doing this, we redefined profit not as dollars, yen or renminbi, but as ratios like RONA (return on net assets), ROCE (return on capital employed) and I.R.R. (internal rate of return).

Since this is called MBA Mondays and we are supposedly teaching a MBA style curriculum, I want to emphasize this point. Do not use Wall Street tools to evaluate investment decisions in your companies. Use the tools that animals use. Survival instincts. What will it take to ensure that your company is around in ten years, fifty years, 100 years? That's how to think if you want to stay in business forever.

But Clay's post for the NY Times yesterday makes a broader point. If the folks who allocate capital in our society – venture capitalists, hedge fund managers, mutual fund managers, etc – are using IRR, ROCE, RONA, then they are going to allocate capital to companies that are making efficiency oriented investments, not empowering investments. And our society will continue to be awash in capital with no game changing  empowering investments that create new industries.

Clay suggests that we measure our returns in "dollars in dollars out" and forget about time, " profit as dollars, yen or renminbi". That's they way I was taught the venture capital business back in the 80s. Cash on cash, dollars in dollars out. That's what matters. If it takes a decade or more, who cares? The slow capital approach.

So if MBA Mondays is a school of business, then I hereby outlaw IRR, RONA, ROCE, from our lips. We aren't going to teach those tools and we aren't going to talk about them either. We are going to talk about making money the old fashioned way. In gobs and gobs, but slowly over time, with our survival instincts fully engaged. Let's hope others do the same.

Ron Lieber has a column in today's New York Times called "A Financial Plan For The Truly Fed Up" where he lists some alternatives to investing your savings with the banks and brokerages that make up Wall Street.

His roadmap is basically what the Gotham Gal and I have been doing since the aftermath of the financial market meltdown in 2008. We invested pretty heavily in the stock market as the market was melting down in 2008 and I blogged actively about that here at AVC. But we took our gains early, in the first half of 2009, and then have more or less stayed out of the stock and bond markets since then (we do use our portfolio company Covestor's service).

We are in cash, real estate, venture capital, and private investments centered around our neighborhood and city (retail, restaurants, etc). Other than cash, we are invested in things we can touch and/or impact and understand.

As Ron talks about at the start of his piece, the never ending blowups on wall street are eroding confidence in that system. It certainly has eroded our confidence in that system. So we are staying out of it for the most part.

We do have our cash at a large money center bank. Ron advises credit unions instead. We haven't made that move and I am not sure we will.

Ron also advises people to check out peer to peer lending markets and mentions our portfolio company Lending Club. I was very happy to see that Ron has come around on peer to peer lending. Our firm is a big fan of these markets, having invested in two of them and looking at others.

And he describes a movement he calls Slow Money described in this way:

“Let’s just take some of our money and invest it near where we live in things we understand, starting with food,” as the movement’s founder, Woody Tasch, puts it. He describes returns as being in the “lowish single digits,” ranging from roughly 3 percent to a few percentage points higher.

The Gotham Gal and I are big fans of this approach. We have invested in a number of busineses in our neighborhood and city with expectations properly set for the occasional loss and in general low returns on the portfolio. But we are helping folks start their own businesses and create establishments we can use and that we want to see in our neighborhood. It feels good and I think it will turn out to be as good an investment as cash in the bank. At least I hope so.

As one system seems to be failing on a regular basis, it makes sense that there are new systems that operate differently that are emerging. We are seeking to invest in the ones that can scale at USV and the Gotham Gal and I are also looking to support these efforts in our personal investing. I am optimistic about this emerging movement and I am pleased to see mainstream media starting to talk about it.

Jeff Bussgang asks an interesting question on his blog.

He suggests that the lack of NYC tech IPOs compared to Boston is a result of:

• The IPO culture hasn’t fully permeated NYC?  There are only very few public technology companies based in NYC:  I count AOL as the only one with > $1 billion market capitalization, whereas Boston has 30-35 innovation economy companies with greater than > $1 billion market capitalization.  Perhaps Boston CEOs, CFOs and boards feel more pressure to go public sooner and/or are comfortable with the IPO process because they community has done it so many times.  Honestly, this theory doesn’t totally resonate with me as NYC is the heart of Wall Street – all the relevant bankers, accountants and advisors are there.  If any technology hub can build a strong middle market public company ecosystem, it should be NYC.
• NYC’s tech sectors are out of favor with public markets?  This theory suggests that the sectors that NY is particularly strong in – consumer, advertising technology, media – are out of favor for some reason.  Perhaps the poor performance of the Facebook IPO soured Wall Street on the consumer sector and advertising-based business models?  But then why have consumer plays like Boston-based Kayak, TripAdvisor and Zipcar done so well?  As for the adtech sector, why did DC-based Millenial Media, a mobile advertising network, have such a strong public offering if the sector is out of favor?  Again, I’m not sure this theory holds water.
• NYC companies are more sizzle than steak?  This theory is that because NYC companies are so heavily covered in the mainstream media, they are perceived to be ahead of where they really are in terms of actual business progress.  E-commerce companies like Etsy, Gilt Group and Rent the Runway get a lot of ink compared to, say, Boston-based Wayfair and RueLaLa.  But if you objectively examined their financials in terms of actual revenue scale and profitability, who is really closer to being ready to file their S-1?  This theory resonates somewhat with me.  For example, there is no TechCrunch reporter in Boston, but a number in New York and Business Insider is a strong local publication that does a nice job cheerleading for the local sector.

I would agree with all of that. Plus as Shai Goldman points out in the comments, time is also a factor:

Hi Jeff, you are missing another reason why NYC hasn't had many IPOs as compared to Boston. Many of the NYC companies that are doing well were started in 2007 or later, so it will take a few more years before they are IPO ready. The Boston IPOs that were stated in this post were started before 2007 I believe. You also forgot to mention Admeld (NYC company) which was a $400M acquisition by Google in June 2011.

I responded in the comments with this:

i think it's all of the above (including Shaig's comment about time)

NYC is a trader town. people like to trade stocks not hold stocks. so what Buddy did is more in line with how NYC folks think. Boston seems to have a long standing culture of building large public companies, like Silicon Valley.

that said, i think we have a couple NYC based companies that will choose the IPO route in the next few years. we are not in a hurry nor are they.

To me this is all about the decades it takes to build a lasting startup community. Boston has been at it since the end of World War II. Silicon Valley has been at it since the 1960s. NYC has been at it since the mid 90s. We will get there. I see it in our portfolio and all around NYC these days.

And while we are talking about Jeff's blog, let's all encourage him to get Disqus on there. He writes good stuff and I am sure he'd get more discussion with a modern comment system.