Building a VC industry, the Israel example

I recently participated in a conversation with one of the original architects of the Yozma initiative, which helped build the VC industry in Israel.

Here are some bullet points from that conversation:
• In the early 1990s, Israel’s government committed $100M as an LP across 10 venture funds
• The goal was to entice foreign VC funds to Israel to invest in companies and train local VC managers (funds were from US, Europe and Asia)
• The funds had the option to buy out the Israeli share within 5 years at a low rate (there was a pre-set formula, it turned out to be ~7%)
• 8 of the 10 funds were doing so well, they exercised the option
• The foreign funds had to have a local partner; the Yozma administrators had a veto over the who would be the local partner
• In only one instance did Yozma reject a candidate; in all other instances Yozma supported whichever local partner the foreign fund found
• Low taxes on foreign investors, no capital gains tax

The result was:
• Foreign funds came in with expertise to train and mentor the next generation of VC managers (this is by far the most important result)
• With the buy-out option, funds had the potential for additional upside at low risk (there were no guarantees for downside)
• In five years, the government got back $140M from their $100M investment
• Spawned about 70 new VC companies in Israel (which has since been pared down to about 35)

What also made Yozma a success was that there was a steady pipeline of companies ready to be funded, mostly coming out of the defense industry. Also, because Israel is such a small market and has hostile neighbors, companies have to think global from day one (as opposed to regional or local). This “global from day one” is also part of the philosophy that made Indian ITS companies so successful.

Damn the Aid

I was recently directed to what is probably the most damning opinion on foreign aid I’ve come across in a while (hat tip Jodi and Tracy.)

Here’s the bottom line:
Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.

The point the author makes is that Africa (and I would add other developing nations) needs investment and not aid. When you accept investment, be it equity or debt, there is significant responsibility attached to provide a return. In other words, you need to make the money work so you can pay back your investors.

Hopefully the money you make with the investment is more than what you need to pay back. If so, you have economic growth and that is good.

It’s not a perfect system, but it seems to work in places like India, SE Asia and more recently in Latin America (the Economist gushed on Brazil in its cover story a few weeks back.)

I’ve touched on this point before, but my view is that the world is awash with capital trying to find its way into places like Africa. Yes, I know there is a credit crunch going on but I think the view still holds.

African countries could start by issuing bonds to raise cash. To be sure, the traditional capital markets of the U.S. and Europe remain challenging. However, African countries could explore opportunities to raise capital in more non-traditional markets such as the Middle East and China (whose foreign exchange reserves are more than $4 trillion). Moreover, the current market malaise provides an opening for African countries to focus on acquiring credit ratings (a prerequisite to accessing the bond markets), and preparing themselves for the time when the capital markets return to some semblance of normalcy.

I would also add multilateral institutions and development banks as potential partners. Yes they have been part of the problem in the past, endlessly financing non-returning projects. But there are factions within these organizations that are now demanding a return and reform for their development financing dollars, and that is a good thing.

Corporations are eager to invest in developing country as well. The problem is there aren’t any good projects to invest in. There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting for the right time to enter Africa (I’m talking about investment in things other than resource extraction).

So what is everyone waiting for? Institutional reform for one (or even institutional creation in some instances)

Governments need to attract more foreign direct investment by creating attractive tax structures and reducing the red tape and complex regulations for businesses. African nations should also focus on increasing trade; China is one promising partner. And Western countries can help by cutting off the cycle of giving something for nothing. It's time for a change.

I would disagree with the point on China. Yes, China is pouring money into Africa but it is doing so to buy up resources and it is hard to see China making the demands for reform an outside investor has to make on Africa. Recent news from Dubai may make the Middle East a less active investor as well.



Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa - WSJ.com

BRIC? BIIC?

Nouriel Roubini questions whether Russia is solid enough to be a BRIC. I have to admit, I've had the same reservation (not that anyone noticed/cared.)

He makes an case for a number of other countries that should be included in the most famous acronym in the emerging markets; Turkey, Mexico and so on. All good choices, Turkey especially.

He also makes this point:
Indonesia, moreover, has shown resilience not only economically, but also as a nation. In spite of its diverse ethnic makeup and far-flung island territory, the country has made a quick transition from military dictatorship and has recovered from myriad challenges and setbacks, including the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the tsunami in 2004, the emergence of radical Islam, and domestic unrest. While Indonesia’s per capita GDP remains low, it is a country’s potential that matters in economic affairs, and here Indonesia shines.

I couldn't agree more.

Climbing out of the Aid Trap

Although I would probably disagree with Glenn Hubbard about a lot of things, I am very eager to read his new book questioning the efficacy of past international aid initiatives.

The simple truth is that billions have been spent on aid, and billions are still left in poverty. Something clearly isn’t working. I understand that Hubbard looks at the post WWII Marshall Plan for inspiration on what could be done in the 21st century to address global poverty. Interesting idea.

Here’s a great quote talking about why microfinance isn’t enough. I’ll pre-empt the quote to say that I agree. Microfinance is great in certain instances, the rural poor for example, to help people on the path to economic development. But microfinance doesn’t really help SMBs and there is a real gap in the market there. Often SMBs are too big for microfinance, but too small for a regular bank loan, so they’re stuck. Happily, this gap seems to be filling in in many countries

Microfinance can be a catalyst for entrepreneurship up to a certain stage of business development, but the businesses launched through microfinance need to develop into full-fledged small businesses if they are to promote greater economic growth. Small and medium-sized businesses are the source of growth in all countries. Eighty percent of China’s employment, for example, is in small business — not in microfinance.

The barriers to growing past micro-entrepreneurship are formidable. Starting a formally-recognized business can require months of waiting, and paying enormous fees — including bribes — as the Doing Business rankings show. An example we use in the book is Mozambique, where starting a business requires forms 12 government agencies; you also have to pay bribes to each of the 12 government employees who stamp your documents. When you have 12 stamps, you can — at last — run your business without fear of being shut down. Similar hurdles in other countries mean that micro-entrepreneurs have a very difficult time becoming a political or economic force strong enough to challenge the status quo.

The bright spot is that micro-lenders are increasingly expanding their loan programs to serve not only individuals, but also established small and medium-sized businesses. Our proposal includes provisions for supporting existing small and medium-sized businesses through microfinance institutions.

Climbing out of the Aid Trap

Global warming money for Africa... great idea.. in concept....

So here's the jist of the deal:

Experts say Africa contributes little to the pollution blamed for warming, but is likely to be hit hardest by the droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels forecast if climate change is not checked.

The draft resolution, which must still be approved by the 10 leaders, called for rich countries to pay $67 billion annually to counter the impact of global warming in Africa.

Kinda makes sense, doesn't it? Africa contributed least to global warming yet they might get hit hardest, so they want something for their troubles.

Sure, who could argue that it isn’t only fair? In concept anyway….

Trying to figure out how this would be deployed in practice makes my head hurt (or maybe my head hurts from the other work I should be doing, instead of goofing off and reading the news off the Internet). As I've said here a few times, the world is not short of cash for emerging countries. Between development banks, organizations and thoughtful individuals, there is actually a lot of cash floating around.

The problem is, how do you reasonably deploy and track that cash? Therein lies the rub. As someone who spends time on issues such as this, I can say there is far more cash than deployment models out there.

I hope this global warming reimbursement idea comes with some deployment and monitoring ideas. If so, it will have a higher probability of success.

Africa wants $67 bln a year in global warming funds | U.S. | Reuters

Microloans need macro-mentoring

Very similar to the point I was making with C-BAM

Indeed, the nonprofit research group Innovations for Poverty Action in New Haven, Conn., published a paper in May that found that Peruvian villagers who had received microloans and had been randomly selected to receive business training performed significantly better than peers who had received loans and no financial education.

Canada and Peru are obviously two very different economies, but the point is that capital, be it microloans or big-buck Silicon Valley VC money, isn’t effective in building great businesses and fueling economic growth if there isn’t some sort of mentoring or business education to back it up.

Capital and mentoring are ying and yang, they need to work in harmony to produce a single successful business. The challenge is that while capital is relatively easy and quick to deploy in emerging markets, finding sustained, experienced, and committed mentoring on-the-ground in poor areas is very hard. People with the right knowledge and experience don’t tend to live in poverty-stricken areas. They’ve used their talents to move elsewhere in search of a better life.

In Canada, the need for mentoring is important, but less acute than in emerging markets, and C-BAM provides one easy fix. Canada is obviously a developed capitalist economy and the start-ups we’re dealing with are already staffed with highly educated and sophisticated people, so we’re starting at a huge advantage. Plus there is the benefit of being in a similar timezone as enthusiastic mentors and having ready access to technologies such as TP.

In poor rural areas, the need for mentoring is there in a big way but there is no sustainable, scalable way to provide it. I know for a fact experienced people want to help micro-enterprises and while parachuting experts in from time-to-time may be better then nothing, it isn’t a true fix.

Having spent some time bouncing around emerging markets, I can see what kind of important tool business mentoring is for development. I don’t have an answer here, maybe as internet video technology spreads farther and wider it will be easier to do C-BAM type events.

Small Business - Teaching Business Basics in the Developing World - NYTimes.com

C-BAM: Mentoring Canadian start-ups, Silicon Valley-style

I’ve written here and elsewhere that a main problem with the start-up communities in different parts of the world (both developed and emerging) isn’t the lack of capital, it is the lack of mentoring. While it may seem counter-intuitive in this age of “credit crisis”, the world is actually flush with capital opportunities if you have the right business plan.

Aye, there’s the rub, coming up with a business plan that investors will feel comfortable with. A lot of the times you come across great ideas, interesting technologies but weak companies and inexperienced (although usually very enthusiastic) management teams.

This is where mentoring comes in. An experienced mentor can help a start-up get its business plan in order and can provide an inexperienced/enthusiastic management team with the sage advice and coaching that will calm a rattled investors’ nerves.

Enter C-BAM!

C-BAM stands for Canada-Bay Area Mentoring (goofy name I know, it was the best I could come up with at the time) and the goal is to provide some Silicon Valley style advice to promising start-ups up in Canada.

The program is exciting to me because it uses technology to bring business mentoring to a whole new level. Although this is not a Cisco event, we used Cisco’s Telepresense (TP) to link up mentors in the Bay Area and start-ups in Canada (in our first instance, in Ottawa.) The start-ups pitched their companies via TP and got real-time feedback from a super group of experienced Canadian Bay Area-based executives and VCs.

(If you think there aren’t a lot of fantastically talented Canadian executives and VCs in the Bay Area, I challenge you to come down here, pick up a rock, throw it and try not to hit one. It can’t be done, I’ve tried.)

We had the first C-BAM last week and I think (hope) we were able to provide some real value to the participating start-ups. We looked at start-ups in the mobile, video conferencing and semiconductor optimization spaces. I have to say the companies were far more sophisticated than I had anticipated, so the discussions happened at a really advanced level.

We still have a few kinks to work out in the overall format but we’re continuing to plan future events, so I’m sure C-BAM will get better in each iteration.

India learning from Toronto?

This article on US media companies beginning to favor India over China in Asia reminded me of an earlier article on the success Toronto has had in multiculturalism.

The common thread here is how important it is to be open and welcoming to outside ideas. I don't mean this as a pitch for diversity per se (although diversity in its own right is a laudable goal.) But rather to highlight that encouraging a diversity of people and of ideas is good for business, helps grow markets and can actually contribute to social cohesion. Everyone wants to support society and its institutions because they feel directly vested in their success.

India is less onerous in its demands and regulations on foreign media and as a result is seeing a great influx of new media ideas. I'm sure it is no coincidence that the Indian media landscape is one of the most dynamic on Earth right now. India is currently the source for many pop-culture innovations from movies to music to fashion.

Homegrown Aid

Short but compelling case for bottom-up development, meaning letting poor countries decide for themselves how to allocate development resources.

Make development results-based rather than consultant-based. I'll leave it to Jeffrey Sachs to explain far better than I could:

Rather than have Washington (Penguin: or anyone else) decide the kind of aid each country will receive, the recipient countries should be invited to prepare plans and budgets that would be reviewed by independent experts. These plans would describe the inputs needed by the farmers, the expected increase in production, how the strategy would be put into place and how much money would be required. Such plans, if described with care, could then be closely monitored by the United States and other donors to gauge results and avoid corruption.

Two international programs during the last decade, championed jointly by the United States, other governments and the Gates Foundation, have demonstrated the benefits of such a scientific, results-based aid approach: the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. These programs have saved millions of lives and protected hundreds of millions more from disease and infection. Here’s how they work: Low-income countries submit national action plans to the two programs, which then scrutinize the plans on their scientific, financial and management merits. If the plans are properly put into effect, recipients get more financing.

I would even take it one step farther and in certain cases, only where is makes sense, have outside investors come in to provide either loans or risk capital. When done properly (ie, this is NOT a peanut butter solution that can be spread over every problem) but when done properly, local for-profit entities working on local social problems could benefit from insights and knowledge of outside investors.

Investment in addition to aid

I’m not sure I agree with much of this WSJ article, but hidden within this anti-IDB opinion is I think a valuable point, that creating an environment to attract investment, not just aid, is key for a country’s development.

Those developing countries that are the most attractive for investment are those with a stable local market, an educated population, and those that facilitate a way to both protect and safely deploy capital.

Developing countries (especially those that don’t happen to be China or India) need to demonstrate to international investors that the government is on their side when it comes to protecting capital.

People and institutions that put money in emerging markets are not risk-takers, they are in fact very risk-averse (or at least, the smart ones are.) So if these risk-averse investors find a developing country where they see a reasonably safe way to deploy and grow their capital---allowing them to put money in and take it out, to find and invest in promising enterprises, to work with trustworthy local partners—then the country will not only benefit from the money that comes in, but also from the talent and know-how that often accompanies these types of investment.



Latin America Needs Economic Liberalization and Property Rights, Not Foreign Aid - WSJ.com

Entrepreneurship | Spreading the gospel | Economist.com

Another example of using entrepreneurship and market forces as tools for global development.

I highlight this example and examples such as Digicel not to discredit more traditional forms of development (although those models could use a re-working), but to illustrate that developments needs a portfolio approach.

There is no one model (for-profit or non-profit) that can help raise people out of poverty. Rather it takes the efforts of many different organizations, with different goals and motivations to really raise the lot of the global poor. For too long perhaps we have focused on the non-profit model and it is now clear that some of the most exciting thinking is coming out of the for-profit world.

From anti-globalist to globalist cheerleader

I wrote earlier that Brazil's economy has improved because of its anti-globalist nature... meaning that much of Brazil's growth has been powered by its relatively insular market and strong internal consumption.

That may be true of the past, but Brazil needs a strong globalized system in order to grow in the future.

But Brazil’s ethanol-fueled economy may have hit a rough patch. The country’s stock market went into bear territory this week, falling 20 percent from its recent high. The collapse of the Doha world trade round has put the brakes on Brazil becoming a major exporter of agricultural products to the United States market. Meanwhile, a drop in oil and metal prices could send the country’s economy into a tailspin.

Can Brazilian M&A Stay Hot?

All this probably explains why Lula is so keen to restart the failed Doha talks.

Brazil: The anti-globalist?

NYTimes has a profile on Brazil today. Probably the most interesting part of the story is about Brazil's self-sufficiency.

Here's the money quote:
“What makes Brazil more resilient is that the rest of the world matters less,” said Don Hanna, the head of emerging market economics at Citibank.

As I've looked at Brazil that has been the one thing that has impressed me the most. The country really has been able to build and grow domestic industries and feed its own growth through internal consumption.

Of course, Brazil hasn't had the GDP growth numbers that other large, more "globalized" emerging markets have demonstrated; Brazil's GDP growth has been in the 4-5% range vs. India's 7% range and China's +9-10% range.

But what it lacks in GDP growth, it makes up in resiliency. It is still a tough story to tell because despite the great social advances as of late in Brazil, it is hard to see how 5% growth will really make a dent in the huge social inequalities in the country.

Barefisted development

Great story on Digicel, a company that has a very barefisted approach to development and market creation. They (apparently) go into a country, develop their infrastructure and sell mobile phones to the masses, all before the government knows what is going on. The gamble is that when people get their mobiles, they are not willing to give them up without a fight.

Fun business model, but it is perhaps not for the faint at heart.

Babble Rouser - Forbes.com

The World Is Upside Down

NAN, that's a new acronym for me. It means (apparently) newly acquisitive nations and refers to companies from Brazil, Mexico, India and China going on a global buying spree usually snatching up US or European (or Canadian) assets.)

A lot of the action is in commodities, oil and gas, and manufacturing. Those markets are where all the money is currently flowing (well, maybe not manufacturing) so it is not surprising.

The most interesting story mentioned here Grupo Mexico battling with Vedanta Resources for Asarco; a Mexican company fighting with an Indian company to buy an American copper company.

With China being an increasingly larger consumer of commodities, the battle over American assets won't be to better serve the American market, but to make more of an in-road in the Chinese one.

Some may be inclined to think this represents the end of the US market as the world's most influential one, I don't think I would agree with that proposition. However, it does indicate that we are entering an increasingly multipolar era where global companies and "must-win" markets originate from every corner of the globe.



Op-Ed Columnist - The World Is Upside Down - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

For good and for profit

An article in the NYT talks about the controversy surrounding Compartamos, a publicly traded for-profit microlender in Mexico. I don’t know anything about Compartamos, so I won’t defend them directly. But I will take on the criticism that they are making too much profit off the backs of their clients, who are poor micro-borrowers.

But Compartamos’s decision to go public last April became a flashpoint in what had been a genteel debate over how microfinance could tap into the financial markets’ vast resources. The initial public offering gets special mention at every microfinance conference, and has been condemned by Mr. Yunus, the Nobel laureate.
Alex Counts, president of the Washington-based Grameen Foundation said Compartamos’s poor clients “were generating the profits but they were excluded from them.”

They key point in my opinion is made here in the story:

After Compartamos became a for-profit company in 2000, costs fell as efficiencies increased, but the bank kept interest rates high. On average, customers pay an annual interest rate of almost 90 percent, which includes 15 percent in government tax. In much of the world, microfinance interest rates range from 25 to 45 percent. But in Mexico, high costs, inefficiency and limited competition keep interest rates much higher. Compartamos’s rates are only a few percentage points higher than Pro Mujer’s, for example.

Simply put, in their quest to become profitable, Compartamos has become a highly efficient lender. As other microlenders were non-profit and not as efficient, Compartamos could afford to offer essentially the same market rates as the other lenders and pocket some money for themselves and their shareholders.

If Compartamos can offer essentially the same service as other banks, then it is hard to see how they are taking advantage of their customers. Sure, rates are high (90%?!?!?!?!...geez!), but all microlenders are offering similar rates.

The answer here is not to discourage for-profit microlender, but to encourage it! Hopefully others will see Camportamos’ success and seek to replicate it. This will bring more for-profit players into the market and in their quest to compete, they will begin to offer loans at lower rates.

After Success, Problems for Microfinancing in Mexico

Spinning a Global Plan - WSJ.com

Pretty good interview with IBM's Sam Palmisano talking about global ambitions.

Once again the issue comes up about foreign workers being a competition to US ones. I find this line of questioning to be uncreative.

1) This competition will push US workers into higher value jobs.

2) Opening markets abroad is essentially a form of global income redistribution. IBM (or any other company) actively doing business abroad creates jobs and wealth, which in turn creates new markets for goods and services.

Here are some money quotes:

WSJ: There's a lot of worry that globalization means fewer jobs and lower pay for U.S. workers. Is that a legitimate worry?

Mr. Palmisano: It's actually a big opportunity. Why not take advantage of it? The leading nation in the global economy is the United States of America. Great schools. Great capital formation. A system that works.

WSJ: Some would say that if you're helping Vietnam or South Africa build their education systems, it takes away job opportunities from Americans.

Mr. Palmisano: There is a real issue here where I think we need to do something more [in the U.S.]. IBM announced programs where we'll match money put in a learning account, and you can apply those tuitions to get future skills that you think are necessary for you.

WSJ: Can you give an example of a smaller country where your work has expanded rapidly?

Mr. Palmisano: Egypt's growing like crazy. We have a huge software laboratory in Egypt. It's doing development for IBM: software components and middleware. At the same time, it's doing commercial work, which they would view as an export business, you know, for clients around the world. The commercial business is growing double digits, right? Egypt is one of the largest populations in the Middle East and has a government that's trying to modernize its economy.

Growing like a BRIC

This video gets a little down in the weeds on Brazilian tax policy (aren't you glad you landed on this blog... we have all the fun!) but the broader point here is well made, taxes and regulation in Brazil are respectively high and onerous. Brazil has the lowest growth at around 4%-5%, with Russia growing over 6%, India at 8% and China over 10%. Although interestingly, Brazil scores the highest of the BRIC countries in the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index, so taxes or no taxes, they must be doing something right... or at least better.

Also, Brazilians seem to be very enthusiastic about globalization and are among the few who would actually like to see the pace of change quicken; far more so than Indians or the Chinese. Without have any data to back this up, a wild guess why this may be is that Brazilians see the benefits of globalization but are frustrated they cannot reap these benefits fully because of their cumbersome tax structure.

American recession, global inflation?

I heard from an economist the other day that the world may be heading towards both a US and China slow-down. The US slow-down (recession) he argued will be relatively mild and not have a great impact outside the US. A China slow-down would hurt emerging countries (because China buys all of their commodities) but will have little impact on the West.

But what about a US recession and continuing strength in China? Economic growth slows domestically and the dollar drops, but global prices remain high and even climb?

The US faces recession from within, and inflation from without. That could greatly exacerbate what may otherwise be a mild US slow-down.

The economy | A delicate condition | Economist.com