Thursday, October 23, 2008
Gather Market Intelligence in Q4
Quick comment on something I have been suggesting to my companies since the financial crisis unfolded. Q4 2008 may be one of of the most uncertain time periods, in terms of customer demand forecasting, that I have experienced since Q4 2001. So how should management teams cope with this really unpleasant fact? My advice is to institute a data gathering process immediately. Start polling customers (existing and potential) and rigorously rolling up and evaluating your findings. The office of the CFO or Marketing Department is probably the right group within the company to be aggregating this information. Look at this information every week. Be sure to track how expected customer spending patterns are changing from week to week. As far as 2009 goes, I would recommend building your sales (and spending forecasts) on a quarter by quarter basis. Q1 2009 (and possibly Q2) could be a particulary selling environment. 2009 operating plans will be finalized in November and December. Most of those budgets will restrict all discretionaly capital spending until later in the year.
Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim, Fire
Companies should always be careful about how they spend their money, but the reality is, they sometimes get lazy. In these very challenging times where fund raising has become difficult, it is critical to spend cash wisely. I bring this up today because I am thinking about all of the companies that raised money in the past 1 or 2years. One thing I would bet on: most (if not all) of these management teams wish they could rewind the clock on how they spent their venture funding. As a venture capitalist, one of toughest choices I have to make is when to encourage a company to ramp headcount and ultimately spending. It feels good to grow headcount, move to a bigger office, take on more projects and vertical markets. But in times like these, it is worth remembering how important it is to wait until your business really understands the market (and customer adoption rate of your technology or service) before ramping spending. One of my partners uses the phrase "ready, aim, aim, aim fire" to describe the process for growing your business. Resist the urge to grow your business headcount (and related expenses) until you have HIGH confidence that you have the right product and the customer base is ready to buy. It is so much easier to grow your busines than it is to shrink it.
Some factoids I heard on CNBC today were pretty shocking.
- 750,000 foreclosures in Q3.
- In 2004, 2005, 2006, Americans took out between $500B and $800 billion per year in home equity loans. What the heck were these people doing with that money.
- On the other hand 80% of all homeowners have sufficient equity to weather the current crisis. It gets ugly, however, if home prices drop another 20%. Then a lot more people may walk away.
- 750,000 foreclosures in Q3.
- In 2004, 2005, 2006, Americans took out between $500B and $800 billion per year in home equity loans. What the heck were these people doing with that money.
- On the other hand 80% of all homeowners have sufficient equity to weather the current crisis. It gets ugly, however, if home prices drop another 20%. Then a lot more people may walk away.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Remaining Objective When Fear is in the Air
It is hard to believe that just 8 years ago, venture capitalists were facing what we all thought would be the ‘great crash’ of our lifetimes. Meaning the one and only significant crash we would see before we retired. After all, even with two world wars, a cold war, and an unprecedented energy shock in the 1970’s, the 20th century only had one Great Depression. The Dow dropped 90% from its high during the Great Depression. NASDAQ dropped 80% from its high after the tech bubble burst. Market collapses of that order are only supposed to happen once in a lifetime. But now, due to the financial crisis of 2008, the consensus opinion among wall street and venture investors is that we are at the beginning of another great crash and long term economic malaise (note Sequoia’s amazing comment about a 15 year secular bear market).
If this were my first bubble bursting experience, I might buy into that dire consensus view. But it isn’t and I don’t. The figure that stays with me more than any other during these trying times is the performance of the Internet and hospitality sectors from 2002 to 2007. In the dark days of 2002, two years after the tech bubble collapsed and a year after the terrorist attacks, the hospitality sector was crushed (who wanted to fly) and many Internet stocks were trading near their cash balances. What happened? Over the next 5 years, Internet and hospitality stocks, which you could barely give away in 2002, were the #2 and #3 best performing sectors out of 75 tracked by Wilshire Associates. The only better performing sector was coal - due to unprecedented growth in emerging market energy consumption.
When the tech bubble burst, lead by collapse of the Internet and telecom sectors, there was widespread believe that these were not ‘real businesses’. It was easy to see why people felt that way. Few Internet or telco executives were talking about cash flow and profits. Of course, the reason for this was that the public markets were not rewarding those things. Five years after the dot com crash, investors came to realize that in fact Internet and telco centric business models (think Google, RIMM) were among the most profitable businesses of our era. This lesson is now well known. What does that mean? I believe this time around the entire tech sector will not be abandoned. If anything, there will be more conviction around the best businesses and business ideas. This very same phenomenon is happening now in the banking sector. In the middle of the panic phase of the financial crisis, investors speak highly of BofA, JP Morgan, US Bankcorp.
We can’t deny that people are worried, even scared, about what is happening on Wall Street. Venture capitalists read the headlines and assume the worst. I believe the root cause of the deep anxiety being felt about the stock market and economy is the speed and severity with which it has taken hold. People have only so much capacity for dramatic change, especially when that change is negative. The pace of mortgage defaults and bank failures this year has been too much for most of us to keep up with. Images of a banana republic come to mind. But consider this point. Over half of all subprime mortgages originated in the trouble years of 2005-2007 have already been written off – to zero. Many of the remaining troubled loans are being worked out. The upshot? There is a historical wealth transfer taking place between global financial institutions and US home owners. Housing debt ratios for consumers will be cut by 40% when the write-offs and loan adjustments are complete. Consumer leverage will be close to what it was in 2001, at the beginning of the housing bubble. While unsettling, the speed at which financial institutions and governments are disposing of problem assets and injecting liquidity into the economy will accelerate economic recovery by 2010, perhaps beginning in the second half of 2009.
And what of those shaky financial institutions that triggered the crash of 2008? The consensus view, reflected by their stock prices, is that more banks will disappear and most will be permanently impaired. Now look at the numbers. The book value of global financial firms was $4 trillion in 2007. Today, it stands at $4.2 trillion. This takes into account the $300B of asset write-downs (net of tax effect) offset by $300B of equity infusions and $400B of newly retained earnings. The stock prices don’t reflect it yet, but the bulk of financial firms have addressed their problems, either by taking massive write downs or merging with stronger partners. So why does it feel so awful? Because these corrective actions have place at a speed we have never seen before. The 1980’s S&L crisis was 5 years in the making and took another 5 to fix. 2000 banks failed during that period. This time feels worse because we are taking all of the bad news at once. In just a few months, US banks have written off more of their troubled loans than the Japanese banks did with their problem loans in 15 years. Have faith in this: once the bad loans have been charged off, a process that might take another 6 months, US banks will have confidence in their own - and each other’s - balance sheets. At that point, reasonable lending practices will return. That is what always happens.
Aside from the painful – but ultimately positive- massive deleveraging by consumers, the scourge of inflation is being wiped out. Headline inflation (which includes food and energy costs) has been running 5% per annum over the past 5 years. It is now projected be near zero for the next 2 years. Reductions in housing, energy and basic consumer staples are the primary reasons for the decline. That means growth in real wages.
Goldman Sach’s recently proclaimed that a deep recession was likely. In their estimates, the US economy could contract by 7% in the next 12 months. We must keep in perspective, however, that just a few weeks ago Goldman was rumored to be on the road to collapse. I can’t help but assume that their deeply pessimistic institutional views have been colored by their proximity to the financial epicenter. But even if we assume that Goldman’s 7% economic contraction estimate is correct, that means that 93% of business and consumer spending continues. Certain sectors like automotive, housing and hospitality will undoubtedly be hard hit. On the other hand, affordable entertainment and productivity enhancing purchases, like investments in business technology, should fare much better.
In summary, this is not a normal economic cycle. The problems in our economy were created by irresponsible home borrowers and lenders, not the typical recessionary forces triggered by excess industrial capacity The blast radius of this crisis has threatened to engulf the whole economy because banks uniquely touch every aspect of commerce. They provide the liquidity for borrowing and lending. There is reason for optimism. With the measures being taken by banks and our government, we are working our way out of this mess. We understand the problems and are addressing them. When we get to a period where 90 days go by without a major financial institution failing, I believe the frayed investor nerves will start to heal. Until then, we must have the discipline to remain informed and objective.
If this were my first bubble bursting experience, I might buy into that dire consensus view. But it isn’t and I don’t. The figure that stays with me more than any other during these trying times is the performance of the Internet and hospitality sectors from 2002 to 2007. In the dark days of 2002, two years after the tech bubble collapsed and a year after the terrorist attacks, the hospitality sector was crushed (who wanted to fly) and many Internet stocks were trading near their cash balances. What happened? Over the next 5 years, Internet and hospitality stocks, which you could barely give away in 2002, were the #2 and #3 best performing sectors out of 75 tracked by Wilshire Associates. The only better performing sector was coal - due to unprecedented growth in emerging market energy consumption.
When the tech bubble burst, lead by collapse of the Internet and telecom sectors, there was widespread believe that these were not ‘real businesses’. It was easy to see why people felt that way. Few Internet or telco executives were talking about cash flow and profits. Of course, the reason for this was that the public markets were not rewarding those things. Five years after the dot com crash, investors came to realize that in fact Internet and telco centric business models (think Google, RIMM) were among the most profitable businesses of our era. This lesson is now well known. What does that mean? I believe this time around the entire tech sector will not be abandoned. If anything, there will be more conviction around the best businesses and business ideas. This very same phenomenon is happening now in the banking sector. In the middle of the panic phase of the financial crisis, investors speak highly of BofA, JP Morgan, US Bankcorp.
We can’t deny that people are worried, even scared, about what is happening on Wall Street. Venture capitalists read the headlines and assume the worst. I believe the root cause of the deep anxiety being felt about the stock market and economy is the speed and severity with which it has taken hold. People have only so much capacity for dramatic change, especially when that change is negative. The pace of mortgage defaults and bank failures this year has been too much for most of us to keep up with. Images of a banana republic come to mind. But consider this point. Over half of all subprime mortgages originated in the trouble years of 2005-2007 have already been written off – to zero. Many of the remaining troubled loans are being worked out. The upshot? There is a historical wealth transfer taking place between global financial institutions and US home owners. Housing debt ratios for consumers will be cut by 40% when the write-offs and loan adjustments are complete. Consumer leverage will be close to what it was in 2001, at the beginning of the housing bubble. While unsettling, the speed at which financial institutions and governments are disposing of problem assets and injecting liquidity into the economy will accelerate economic recovery by 2010, perhaps beginning in the second half of 2009.
And what of those shaky financial institutions that triggered the crash of 2008? The consensus view, reflected by their stock prices, is that more banks will disappear and most will be permanently impaired. Now look at the numbers. The book value of global financial firms was $4 trillion in 2007. Today, it stands at $4.2 trillion. This takes into account the $300B of asset write-downs (net of tax effect) offset by $300B of equity infusions and $400B of newly retained earnings. The stock prices don’t reflect it yet, but the bulk of financial firms have addressed their problems, either by taking massive write downs or merging with stronger partners. So why does it feel so awful? Because these corrective actions have place at a speed we have never seen before. The 1980’s S&L crisis was 5 years in the making and took another 5 to fix. 2000 banks failed during that period. This time feels worse because we are taking all of the bad news at once. In just a few months, US banks have written off more of their troubled loans than the Japanese banks did with their problem loans in 15 years. Have faith in this: once the bad loans have been charged off, a process that might take another 6 months, US banks will have confidence in their own - and each other’s - balance sheets. At that point, reasonable lending practices will return. That is what always happens.
Aside from the painful – but ultimately positive- massive deleveraging by consumers, the scourge of inflation is being wiped out. Headline inflation (which includes food and energy costs) has been running 5% per annum over the past 5 years. It is now projected be near zero for the next 2 years. Reductions in housing, energy and basic consumer staples are the primary reasons for the decline. That means growth in real wages.
Goldman Sach’s recently proclaimed that a deep recession was likely. In their estimates, the US economy could contract by 7% in the next 12 months. We must keep in perspective, however, that just a few weeks ago Goldman was rumored to be on the road to collapse. I can’t help but assume that their deeply pessimistic institutional views have been colored by their proximity to the financial epicenter. But even if we assume that Goldman’s 7% economic contraction estimate is correct, that means that 93% of business and consumer spending continues. Certain sectors like automotive, housing and hospitality will undoubtedly be hard hit. On the other hand, affordable entertainment and productivity enhancing purchases, like investments in business technology, should fare much better.
In summary, this is not a normal economic cycle. The problems in our economy were created by irresponsible home borrowers and lenders, not the typical recessionary forces triggered by excess industrial capacity The blast radius of this crisis has threatened to engulf the whole economy because banks uniquely touch every aspect of commerce. They provide the liquidity for borrowing and lending. There is reason for optimism. With the measures being taken by banks and our government, we are working our way out of this mess. We understand the problems and are addressing them. When we get to a period where 90 days go by without a major financial institution failing, I believe the frayed investor nerves will start to heal. Until then, we must have the discipline to remain informed and objective.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Next Big Thing is?
Giant secular change. That is what Wall Street pays strict attention to, particulary when it comes to evaluating IPO candidates. In my investment career, I have seen a few of these. The eras of biotechnology, Internet, alternative fuels, commodity inflation are some of the big ones. I mention this because I routinely am presented with business plans for perfectly good companies. And yet, my firm, Clearstone Venture Partners, regularly passes on these 'perfectly good' businesses? Why? Because we are looking for the kind of businesses that are tapping into a giant secular trend that will provide substantial growth and earnnings power.
These opportunities don't come along very often. And when they do, it is easy to miss them. I have been a VC for a long time, and I can tell you that the fantastic business ideas do not come with a bright ribbon on them saying "Please open, this is the next Google, Microsoft, Paypal, ect". To see the hidden value of a business, particulary an early stage one, an investor must have a view of the mega trends unfolding in the world. How is the business under consideration positioned to take advantage of whatever large trend it is playing to? Entrepreneurs would do well to think through this concept before meeting with investors.
These opportunities don't come along very often. And when they do, it is easy to miss them. I have been a VC for a long time, and I can tell you that the fantastic business ideas do not come with a bright ribbon on them saying "Please open, this is the next Google, Microsoft, Paypal, ect". To see the hidden value of a business, particulary an early stage one, an investor must have a view of the mega trends unfolding in the world. How is the business under consideration positioned to take advantage of whatever large trend it is playing to? Entrepreneurs would do well to think through this concept before meeting with investors.
Web Marketing for Tech Businesses...
I recently began examining corporate web marketing practices. I was curious at how things have evolved in the past few years, particulary among supposedly web savy technology companies. What a surprise. The sophistication of B2B web marketing techniques falls considerably behind what is happening on the consumer web.
What is equally surprising is the disparity among companies in the same industry. In the enterprise networking space, for example, F5 and Riverbed are quite sophisticated in their web lead gen practices. Riverbed, as a benchmark, generates close to 100% of its sales leads from web based marketing. Imagine what that does for its sales and marketing expense line. For most companies, however, the web is little more than an online product brochure. A huge missed opportunity.
I don't believe this condition will last forever. But on the web, there is a big advantage to being first. In the end, those companies that begin taking their web sites seriously as sales tool will show superior operating margins to their off- line focused rivals.
So here is some advice to technology company executives in the B2B world. Ask your marketing staff how many leads come from the web today? If it is less than 10%, you probably have little or no web marketing direction. A good goal to shoot for is 25%. Keep in mind: the higher that figure goes, the lower your cost of sales. Also consider that most corporte purchase decisions are well researched. The web is the starting point. Your business should be the first place potential buyers go to get informed and ultimately make a purchase.
What is equally surprising is the disparity among companies in the same industry. In the enterprise networking space, for example, F5 and Riverbed are quite sophisticated in their web lead gen practices. Riverbed, as a benchmark, generates close to 100% of its sales leads from web based marketing. Imagine what that does for its sales and marketing expense line. For most companies, however, the web is little more than an online product brochure. A huge missed opportunity.
I don't believe this condition will last forever. But on the web, there is a big advantage to being first. In the end, those companies that begin taking their web sites seriously as sales tool will show superior operating margins to their off- line focused rivals.
So here is some advice to technology company executives in the B2B world. Ask your marketing staff how many leads come from the web today? If it is less than 10%, you probably have little or no web marketing direction. A good goal to shoot for is 25%. Keep in mind: the higher that figure goes, the lower your cost of sales. Also consider that most corporte purchase decisions are well researched. The web is the starting point. Your business should be the first place potential buyers go to get informed and ultimately make a purchase.
Next up: The Bail Out of Detriot
I just read that Representative John Dingell of Michigan has proposed a $25 billion federal bail out for the Big 3 auto manufacturers located in his home state. Hard to believe it has come to this. Though not suprising. After the bail out of the airlines in 2001, followed by the bail out of the major wall street invesment banks, home builders and now Freddie and Fannie in 2008, it was bound to happen. In fact, it is hard to make a principled argument against Dingell's proposal based on recent precedent. How do you tell an American auto executive that he is less worthy of charity than the coalition of agribusinesses that benefited so handsomely from this years Farming Bill.
Which makes me wonder: Why didn't the tech industry request federal funds after the dot com and telecom bubbles burst in 2000? In hindsight, it seems like a grave mistake. The tech industry employs a large number of middle class voters. For some reason, there was no cry for help as this important industry shed millions of jobs from 2001 through 2004. Perhaps this is a reflection of the way we in this industry think. We are more open to the good and bad of market forces. Start-ups are risky and routinely fail. We don't expect people to feel sorry for us or to provide us a hand out when poor management or bad luck works against us. What is surprising to me is that I thought this was a strongly held American belief. The last few years have changed my outlook.
The most troubling implication of this recent massive federal intervention is the precedent we have now set for federal hand outs. The bar is quite low. When the next American industry experiences hard times, how do we stand up and say "you got yourselves into this mess, you need to solve the problem yourselves"?
Which makes me wonder: Why didn't the tech industry request federal funds after the dot com and telecom bubbles burst in 2000? In hindsight, it seems like a grave mistake. The tech industry employs a large number of middle class voters. For some reason, there was no cry for help as this important industry shed millions of jobs from 2001 through 2004. Perhaps this is a reflection of the way we in this industry think. We are more open to the good and bad of market forces. Start-ups are risky and routinely fail. We don't expect people to feel sorry for us or to provide us a hand out when poor management or bad luck works against us. What is surprising to me is that I thought this was a strongly held American belief. The last few years have changed my outlook.
The most troubling implication of this recent massive federal intervention is the precedent we have now set for federal hand outs. The bar is quite low. When the next American industry experiences hard times, how do we stand up and say "you got yourselves into this mess, you need to solve the problem yourselves"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
