Reflections & analysis about innovation, technology, startups, investing, healthcare, and more .... with a focus on Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes. Blogging continuously since 2005.

Tag: Forbes (Page 1 of 2)

Gov. Doug Burgum Touts ND, Rich Karlgaard Sizes Up the Economy

event ballroom and stage

North Dakota has a lot going for it. The state embodies many good, positive things. The spirit of the pioneering American West. The frontier. Teddy Roosevelt. Hard work. Endless possibilities. Family values. The great American farmer. It also happens to have one of the best damn football programs in the entire U.S.A.: the NDSU Bison. Oh, and not the least, a booming economy.

I consider myself lucky to live in the next-door state, where I can closely admire what’s going on there. So, early Thursday morning, February 20th, I jumped in my car and headed Northwest to Fargo to attend the annual “Economic Outlook” luncheon event put on by the Fargo-Moorhead-West Fargo Chamber of Commerce.

It was fantastic! I’d only heard about it a few days earlier, in one of the email newsletters I get regularly from the fine folks at the Emerging Prairie organization.  (Thank you, Greg.) I knew it would be a bit of a time investment — a seven-hour round trip! But I happened to have the day open, and I quickly decided I just couldn’t miss the main speaker, my friend Rich Karlgaard (who happens to be a native of Bismarck, North Dakota).

Rich is the longtime Publisher of Forbes and a well known  futurist and speaker, whom the Chamber described as “one of the most influential and respected figures in the technology, economic, and business worlds. He advises audiences on how to harness an organization’s disruptive spirits to maximize business opportunities in the global marketplace. He’s also a regular panelist on one of cable news’ most popular business shows, Forbes on FOX.” Rich has a long bio, and you can learn more about him here, including his many great books. He’s one of my all-time favorite people in the tech business! We originally met some 20 years ago, and I manage to connect with him from time to time.

I arrived about 40 minutes early and was lucky enough to run into Rich as soon as I walked in. So we had a nice chance to catch up before the crowd started arriving. The event was held in a huge ballroom, and Rich drew a full house of business leaders. It was a packed,  high-energy affair!

Doug Burgum (left) and Rich Karlgaard

Doug Burgum (l) and Rich Karlgaard.

As we chatted in the big room, just as it was starting to fill, he saw his friend and colleague Doug Burgum, the noted software founder, VC, and now the Governor of North Dakota, walk into the room. So, we headed over to chat with him. I of course know Doug’s VC firm, Arthur Ventures, quite well and regularly stay in touch with some of the folks there. But Doug has been focused on serving as Governor since assuming that office more than three years ago. He was slated to give some opening remarks.

Times Are Good in North Dakota

“Every region in the country would trade places with us,” Doug declared after taking the stage. “There’s never been a better time for us here!” Then he started ticking off a list of ratings for his state:

• #1 Best Place to Raise a Family

• #1 for Millennials

• Fargo is the #1 Hottest Job Market, with Bismarck (the capitol) coming in at #9

• And, as we’ve all heard by now, North Dakota is the #2 Oil Producing State

“We’re powering and feeding the world,” the Governor said. He also noted that North Dakota ranks high in broadband deployment — one of the most connected states in the U.S.  As one of the top agriculture states, and arguably the most technologically advanced in ag tech, he said, “We need to have every combine connected!”

He went on to say that his state has one of the lowest unemployment rates, and that it needs more workers and education. “Our number-one priority is developing a larger, better educated workforce.”

The Main Event

Billed as a talk on “Tech, Trade, Turbulence, and the 2020 Election,” it was now time to hear from the keynoter, Rich Karlgaard. He began by saying he’s now been with Forbes for 28 years. (I remember when he began as editor of a brand-new publication called Forbes ASAP, after being a key team member of a ground-breaking Silicon Valley-based publication called Upside, which I loved and was where I first came to know him. I had the honor of introducing Rich at a huge event in downtown Minneapolis in 2000  — that will provide some more color about his early career.)

Rich Karlgaard on stageRich kicked off by mentioning a couple of his recent books, “The Soft Edge” and “Team Genius.” The latter, he said, received praise from Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, and — interesting tidbit — Rich noted that Satya once reported to Doug Burgum at Microsoft. Then Rich quickly dove into a hot topic of the  moment, the 2020 elections, as the latest Democratic train wreck debate had just happened the night before. His first slide spoke of “The Grim Logic of Money,” referring to the massive sums at play for Bernie and Bloomberg. He commented on some of the candidates, noting that Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar “can’t get into orbit,” and that Nate Silver, the noted statistician, recently said Bernie will come up short of delegates, at only 1500-some, when 1991 are needed to get the nomination. He said it’s looking like a brokered convention this summer — “a mess like Chicago” (referring to 1968).

Rich dove right into a rapid-fire talk with many slides, touching on a  whole array of topics. It was hard to keep up the note-taking, but I was trying:

GDP Growth Rates

Trump has averaged 2.6% 2017-2019. Obama averaged 2.2%  2009-2016. George W. Bush averaged 2.1% 2001-2008 (but that last year was the financial crash). With the you-know-what virus scare, GDP in Q1 2020 will not be good, he said. But he nonetheless sees 2.2 to 2.3% growth for the year — a solid “B.”

Reasons for Hope

“Stocks are still undervalued — there’s room to grow,” said Karlgaard. He noted the increase in housing starts in December of 16.9%. Combined mortgage and household debt is near the bottom of the recent historical range. Interest payments on federal debt as a percent of GDP are way down. And CEO confidence rebounded in Q4 according to the Conference Board. “Also, small business optimism is going up,” he said. “It dipped a bit in Q4 but remains high.”

Life in the Valley

Rich put up a slide of Peter Thiel, the noted conservative VC and billionaire founder, who used to be in Silicon Valley but now lives in LA. Not sure the subtle point there, but Rich made a funny comment: “We conservative Republicans in Silicon Valley could hold our quarterly meetings in a phone booth.”

Bits vs. Atoms

Speaking in North Dakota, Rich couldn’t help but bring up what he calls the “atoms industries” — meaning mining, agriculture, industrial production, manufacturing. The kinds of industries where it’s harder to raise capital — as opposed to the digital industry centered in Silicon Valley, where money flows. (But a side note here: North Dakota is also a major software hub, with the Microsoft Dynamics business in Fargo being one of the largest employers in the state.)

Calling a 2020 Winner

“Trump is favored by voters in the world of atoms,” he said. “Meanwhile, Dems assume they’re better at digital things.” The Obama campaign in 2012 “cleaned Mitt Romney’s clock,” with social media and other digital tools. But, Rich said, look out for Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital campaign manager in 2016, who’s now heading the entire campaign in 2020. He cited a commentator who calls him “smart and dangerous.”

So, the digital edge may be changing. “Look what the Dems did in Iowa!” Karlgaard exclaimed — meaning the big digital fail. He predicts Trump wins easily in November.

Tech Trends that Are “Mega”

So, where are things headed in tech? Rich’s Megatrend #1 is this: “The tech economy is not slowing down — it’s speeding up.” The old Moore’s Law  essentially brought us a 30% improvement each year. But advances in semiconductors will soon be taking us from 30 billion to 60 billion transistors per chip. Taiwan Semiconductor just announced it will be opening a production facility for 3-nanometer silicon — a feat unheard of not long ago. He put up a slide citing “The New Engine of Disruption: Diane Greene’s Law” (she being the recent head of Google’s cloud division, and formerly a cofounder of VMware.) The new norm this brings us, says Karlgaard, is “a 60% annual improvement in digital bang for the buck.” He also quoted Scott Guthrie, head of Microsoft Azure: “Cloud not only scales up — it scales out, to users.” That referring to computing at the edge, which brings us advances like “near-instant trend analysis.” What industries will be transformed in the next decade? Here’s the slide: list of industries that will be transformed

Megatrend #2: “Extreme valuation creates asymmetric funding.” To illuminate, Rich cited the valuation of Tesla, currently at about $166 billion, as compared to GM at $49 billion. “Tesla’s getting free money,” he said. “They roll the dice! The investors want that.” GM, on the other hand, has investors that are primarily pension funds — and they don’t like or want change. What this trend results in, he said, is “repeated assaults to the profits of legacy companies.” And he couldn’t help but cite the current number of “unicorn” companies: it’s now up to 524.

Megatrend #3: “Digital awareness is becoming more important.” And here Rich delves into what the says are best practices — one being “cultural clarity.” Companies  have to know who they are, what they’ll do, and what they won’t do. He showed  what Fred Smith, CEO of FedEx, calls his triangle of health for companies: “Execution” on the left, “Values” on the right, and “Strategy” on the bottom. And he cited Scheel’s, a privately held, employee-owned sporting goods and entertainment chain headquartered in Fargo, which is “a good example of executing on its self-identity.” Another couple of best practices come out in his 2015 book, Team Genius: 1) small is better when it comes to teams, and 2) seek cognitive diversity — meaning both analytical and intuitive people. An example he cited: the pairing of two opposites at Starbucks: Howard Schultz and Howard Behar. When its rapid growth stalled, and customer service was suffering, the hard-charging Schultz promoted the other Howard to deal with the soft side of the business. Behar, not an analytical type and not even a college grad, was critical to the creation of what became Starbucks unique culture, eventually becoming president of Starbucks North America and Starbucks International. Another example of teaming: Fred Smith at FedEx had the “inside view” nailed, but he recruited a key outsider from Silicon Valley as a board member: Judy Estrin, who brought the digital view. Finally, Karlgaard talked about all the Silicon Valley technical-genius founders and cofounders with 800 math SAT scores: Woz, Zuck, and many other well-known names. “No HR manager ever got fired for hiring 800 scores!” But there’s a lot more to talent in the world of cognitively diverse teams in this digital age.

Do you know how many players got list of Karlgaard's "Super Powers"drafted ahead of Tom Brady, he asked? There were scores of them — and he showed many of the names you’ve never even heard of. So the question he asks is, “How do you find more Tom Bradys?” That’s a topic Rich addresses in his most recent book, Late Bloomers (also coming out in paperback soon). And he gave us a brief list of what he puts forth in that book as his key “Super Powers” — shown in the slide here. (I have the book and recommend it — in fact, I brought it along to get Rich to sign it!)

During the audience Q&A following his talk, Rich made an interesting comment about Fargo-Moorhead: “I think it punches well above its weight. I see it as a smaller Austin TX or Columbus OH.” Yes, indeed — population isn’t everything. Intangibles matter.

As the event ended and Rich was being interviewed by a local TV station, I chatted with a few good folks I’d met, then jumped back into my car to get back home before dark. My head was buzzing all the way back down Interstate 94. So glad I made the trip!

 

 

 

 

 

Angels and VCs Working More Closely? Signs of Hope…

In the technology startup world, angels and VCs have at best been seen as different camps, with separate perspectives, and even being at odds with each other many times. One is from Venus, the other’s from Mars. One tends to be a cocky MBA, the other’s an entrepreneur with real operational experience. Armwrestling_2

One pounds spreadsheets all day, the other’s a cowboy. As a minimum, they certainly don’t have a record of working closely together. They can compete for deal flow, they often distrust each another, and it’s frequently heard that angel investments can foul up the chance for later VC rounds because of unrealistic valuations or poor cap structure, or whatever.

There was a time when "venture capital" was synonymous with seed-stage investing. But, with the trend in recent years toward larger and larger funds, some approaching $1 billion, "You don’t have to do much math to realize that such firms are forced to make bigger and bigger investments to generate adequate returns for their limited partners," says Sramana Mitra in her recent column in Forbes: The Real VCs of Silicon Valley. (Mitra is an experienced technology entrepreneur and strategy consultant in Silicon Valley.) An excerpt from the column:

"…if you are an entrepreneur, especially a first-time entrepreneur,
you need to look for the ‘real’ VCs who are willing to take risks and
invest their time in mentoring you, not those big names that the term
venture capital normally conjures."

And who does Mitra say those real VCs are?

"So-called ‘angels.’ While VCs primarily invest other people’s money,
angels invest their own. An entrepreneur working on a fledgling idea
needs investors who not only provide valuable business advice but also
connect the dots to make business development partnerships happen, help
recruit key team members and help move the venture from concept to a
fundable company. Angels tend to have the operational background
necessary to play such a role."

Angels investing is no small phenomenon. One study found that that angels invested $25.6 billion in
2006 in the U.S. in 251,000 mostly early-stage deals (for an average investment of
about $100,000).

In her piece, Mitra seriously questions whether and how the gap created by VCs moving to larger and larger investments is being filled. Her closing line: "In capitalism, gaps generally get spotted and filled. This one–and the entrepreneurs in it–is still waiting."

Clarion Call
Mitra’s point comes early in her column: "we need to create a sort of microequity program for start-ups." It’s getting to be a common refrain; angels are clearly being expected to pick up more of the slack, as VCs leave early-stage investing behind and entrepreneurs get increasingly frustrated. Yet positive things are starting to happen, with more and more sophisticated, managed angel groups forming (or becoming more formalized), all across the country.

Note: this is not just a Silicon Valley phenomenon. That may be the epicenter of the VC industry, and where most of their money is invested, but not so for angel investors. Their is no epicenter. Sure, there are some notable angel groups in the Valley. But the distribution of these groups is much more even across the country. If anything, the Midwest rules. The Angel Capital Association is located in, are you ready? …Kansas. Of the organization’s approximately 150 member groups (see their directory), it’s the Midwest region that has the largest number of such groups (40), by a wide margin. So, yes, it’s fair to say that angel investing is more a heartland thing.

Reactions from Both Sides
Seeing the column in Forbes inspired me to do another blog post on angel investing. (See this category of my blog for lots more I’ve written on the topic; I also did a recent post on the new blog Minnov8.) After reading the Forbes piece, I reached out to three of my contacts whom I thought would have something to say in reaction.  First, from the angel side:

"I really think that linking the angel and VC markets really hurts both models," said Pete Birkeland, CFO of angel network management firm RAIN Source Capital, St. Paul. "The VCs get hammered for not investing early enough, and the angels get hammered for scattershot investing. These are two complementary but distinct activities. They’re both needed to continue to grow companies and innovate. As we run our angel groups, we want to be able to look at opportunities that are early and risky, and invest in those that have a potential for a return.  That return may be 3-5x, and we may be able to live on a seven-year horizon —  that (scenario) wouldn’t even get past a first screen by a VC. We need an ‘angel manifesto’ that breaks us away from VCs, and the mindset that we have to all become VCs.  However, with the view of limited partners and the dollars involved, it’s tough to escape the gravitational pull of the VC model."

And from an individual angel: "Founders, especially those without prior startup experience, need strong advisors, even operational advisors," said Doug Henrich, a former Microsoft executive and angel investor now living in the Twin Cities. "For an angel to be successful, I feel he or she needs to be active in the startup. The money of course is needed, but the experience and counsel are more valuable in successful startups. The experience has to come from somewhere…I wonder how large VCs can make money in the software space these days."  I read that last comment of Henrich’s to mean that, for software startups, angel investors are naturally a better fit — that such firms need the type of mentoring that comes from angels in their early stages. In other words, VCs’ big money isn’t the answer; it doesn’t tend to produce the desired result.

One Big Sign of Hope
From the VC side, I very much wanted to get a comment from a firm I know well — one that started in Minneapolis, still has close ties here, but has been headquartered in Palo Alto for several years: Crescendo Ventures. Davidspreng
David Spreng is the Managing General Partner of the firm, and has been on the board of the NVCA (National Venture Capital Association) since 2005. He recently launched a great blog called "Lightbulb," and here’s his About page there. But the most interesting thing is that David was recently tapped by the NVCA board to be the organization’s liaison to the angel community. That, to me, is very cool — a sure sign the two sides will be coming closer together in the future.

David was jumping on a plane when he I caught him, but pointed me to a recent blog post of his titled Angels and VCs Find Common Ground. In it, he reprints an article he co-wrote a couple of months ago with a board member of the Angel Capital Association. I had heard wind of this article before, and told him I bet I could get some good insights of his from it. I was right. I encourage you to read the full article, but here’s an excerpt:

While both angel groups and VCs have issues to improve in our relationships and processes, establishing strong relationships with quality angel groups can be extremely valuable to a venture firm’s deal flow and ultimate returns.

At $250,000 to $1 million, the average size round for an angel group is often below what most venture capitalists would consider investing in a Series A round. However, respected angel groups may well have the next generation of promising early stage companies that a venture capitalist is not ready to invest in but also doesn’t want to lose track of.

The ACA and the NVCA are both committed to working together to improve the relationships between angel groups and venture capitalists by sharing best practices and enhancing communications between the two associations.

Transitions from angel groups to venture capitalists should be seamless and considered a valued relationship for all the stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, co-investors and limited partners.

As I said, signs of hope. And it can all only be good for you entrepreneurs out there.

UPDATE (4/11/08): Well, maybe not as much hope as I thought. Just saw Sramana Mitra’s new column this morning in Forbes:  Fund Envy: Venture funds are getting bigger all the time. This is bad news for aspiring entrepreneurs. Yes, she says, taking a poke at the name of a well-known VC’s blog, "Greed, indeed, is infectious."

 

The Year in VC: Forbes Reports It Well

As I look forward to DEMO, starting tomorrow evening — a VC lovefest like no other — I really enjoyed reading Forbes.com today.  I continue to be impressed by their coverage of tech.  It surely has something to do not only with their great reporters and editors (especially in the Silicon Valley bureau), but with their very well respected tech-savvy publisher, Rich Karlgaard, whom I count among my most admired colleagues.Forbeslogo

And the fact that he hails originally from the part of the country where I live also makes him very special, too!  Though he’s a Stanford boy and has lived in the Valley for many years, he gets back to the Minnesota/Wisconsin/Dakotas area regularly, and I suspect that’s partly because it keeps him feeling grounded to his roots.

Forbes uncorked an awesome set of stories the past couple of days on the current state of VC — well, really tech deal-making in general.  It’s all tied to their annual Midas 100 List, which ranks the top tech deal makers in the world. Forbesmidaslist08It’s fascinating reading.

According to Forbes, companies that venture capitalists helped launch hauled in $34 billion from 86 public offerings and 304 acquisitions during 2007. No less than 31 IPOs happened in the fourth quarter, worth $3 billion — "more than any other quarter since the third quarter of 2000."  That’s a very telling stat.  Their assessment of who did what, and how much they and their investors profited, can be viewed here by rank, by name, or by company.

Some of the related stories to this coverage included the following, which is great reading for anyone involved in technology startups:

Big Wins For Venture Capitalists – An excerpt: "Recent credit crunch and market woes be damned: Technology’s most powerful deal makers have been on a winning streak."

Venture Firms Peek Out Of Silicon Valley – I love this part: "More and more firms are thinking that if they want differentiated deal flow, they need to look outside of Silicon Valley," said Village Ventures co-founder Matt Harris. Village Ventures manages $750 million in funds focused on 14 small cities across the country, from Boise, Idaho, to Tucson, Arizona. This article also includes a profile of a VC from my part of the country: John Neis, co-founder of Madison, WI-based Venture Investors, who’s one of the Midas 100.

The Golden Google Touch – "Google has been a bonanza for venture capitalists John Doerr and Michael Moritz, who helped fund the Google when it was a start-up. Their personal gains, according to Forbes’ estimates, are likely north of $800 million apiece."

Hot Or Not: Where VCs Will–And Won’t–Invest – "Forbes asked 10 top players to give us their assessments of areas they feel are hot–and which are not."

All in all, a great overview of the current situation, and you’ll see even more links of interest, too.  They even have some informative videos posted that are part of this coverage, such as interviews with certain  players they cover in these articles.  I’m really impressed with the expanded coverage Forbes.com is providing on their site, and the quality of that coverage.

[I’m excited that Tech-Surf-Blog will be part of the Forbes Financial & Business Blog Network when it launches soon. (Yes, that’s part of the reason I’m starting to include ads on this site.) ]

What do you think of the current state of tech deal-making?  Are you positive or negative about 2008 when it comes to VC funding, IPOs, or M&A?

Business Week Sucking Wind; Forbes Rocks On

When a news release hit my inbox early this morning saying the publisher of BusinessWeek, Geoffrey A. Dodge, was joining Salesforce.com as SVP of media sales, I was surprised. But then I quickly realized that, if I lived in NY, I would have probably heard about this last Thursday, because I see the news broke in the NY Post and Silicon Alley Insider then. And it turns out it was probably not such a big surprise at that time to those in magazine circles, since he’d been passed over for the job as president of BusinessWeek some months ago.

Busweekvsforbes

I think the bigger story here, however, is the pain being felt by BusinessWeek these days, as it lags category leader Forbes by a long shot in ad sales, and has been much slower in integrating its print and online properties. Forbes wrote the book there, and is doing the best of the major biz pubs, by a good margin. Reason: they “got” the Internet early on.

For the lowdown on the status of business publications these days, read this nice analysis from Media Life that came out with the Dodge news. I show one chart from that story here (Copyright 2007, MediaLife Magazine.)

Bizpubssales

Time for “Life 3.0” in the Valley?

Back in late 2002, in the doldrum years after the Tech Crash, my friend Rich Karlgaard (the Publisher of FORBES) became compelled to start writing a book about a phenomenon he’d been observing in Silicon Valley. People were leaving in droves — entrepreneurs and other business people, tech workers of every stripe. Good people, successful people, and so many of them disallusioned. Life20cover They’d had it with the expensive living and the rat race up and down the 101, and they were determined to find a better life elsewhere. It’s a great book — called “Life 2.0” — and it’s on my recommended reading list in the right sidebar. He came to Minnesota to interview me when he first began writing it.

Well, hold on, but another book could be in the offing here, from somebody, based on what we read yesterday from two leading Valley-based technology bloggers. First, Michael Arrington launched this bomb on Tech Crunch: Silicon Valley Could Use A Downturn Right About Now…the most telling sentence of which was this: “Times are good, money is flowing, and Silicon Valley sucks.” Here’s another excerpt, his concluding paragraph:

I left Silicon Valley at the peak of the insanity last time around, and I was pleasantly surprised when I returned in 2005 to see so much goodwill and community surrounding innovation. Now, it’s just like the old days again, and Silicon Valley is no longer any fun. In fact, it’s turned downright nasty. It may be time for some of us to leave for a while and watch the craziness from the outside again. In a few years, things will be beautiful again. The big money will be slumbering away, and the marketing departments will be a distant memory. We can focus, once again, on the technology. And the burgers and beer.

The post had 210 comments(!) at last count, so it’s obviously hitting a nerve. But, as if that wasn’t enough, Robert Scoble then chimes in essentially seconding the motion. I like Robert — he’s one of the nicest, most likeable, down-to-earth guys you will ever meet in this business. (And his wife, Maryam, is a real sweetheart, too.) So, when Robert talks, I listen. I respect what he says. Well, yesterday, he further enlightened all us unwashed masses of Valley outsiders with what it’s really like to be an insider there these days. And it does not sound particularly pleasant. His post was titled Why I’m in a malaise…, and here’s an excerpt:

I too look wistfully back at the days when we had almost the entire Social Software industry in one little coffee shop back in 2002 — none of whom were talking about making billions of dollars. Back then it was more like the Homebrew Computer Society, where geeks came to show off their stuff (and everyone was pretty much not getting paid anyway so of course we were doing it just for the love of it).

It seems to me that both Robert and Michael are tired of the grind — the relentless parade of me-too companies and legions of PR people and VCs trying to get their attention, and the hellish treadmill they’re on producing content day after day, night after night. You can only do that for so long before you get burned out — and it seems both of them have reached that point.

Then again, who knows, maybe they just need a vacation? What I do know is that I wouldn’t want either of their jobs. Sure, I’m a blogger, but these guys are hardly your typical bloggers anymore. They’re both part of serious, money-making publishing businesses (Robert also being a VP at PodTech), and both inextricably caught up in the big-money world of tech VC. Now it seems they’re both wondering, “Is this all there is?” And it begs the question: is this crazy Web 2.0 startup world getting closer and closer to a bubble burst?

Makes me glad I live in Minnesota, where things are a great deal more sane. And I know Rich Karlgaard would be the first to agree with me.

UPDATE: To add book link.

« Older posts