On 5 Feb 2009, at 23:12, Jason Langenauer wrote:
> > I agree that it should be for-profit too - Not only for the reasons > Mick lists below, but because I will absolutely guarantee any not-for- > profit association will degenerate into chaos and infighting should > they suddenly find they have $10m because they made an good early > stage investment in an Australian company that made it big. I've seen > it happen with amounts far smaller. While not agreeing with Elias that > humans are inherently selfish, this is one case where self-interest > would tend to be a stabilizing rather than destabilizing force. > > I'm in Sydney tomorrow, and will be at the drinks - definitely > something we should all shoot the breeze on. I know that everybody knows what drinks you are talking about, but I'm unfortunately not sure. So, what drinks are you talking about? D. > > > Cheers > > Jason > > On Feb 5, 9:57 pm, Mick Liubinskas <bigm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Great discussion. My very late and loopy thoughts. >> >> It should be for-profit. Micro-finance works because it is a loan not >> a donation. >> >> Seriously forget about VC's. If they knock on your door, great, but >> otherwise, just do what every you can to build your business. I guy I >> saw talk last night gave the order of investment from smallest to >> biggest like this; >> >> FFF - family friends and fools. >> Angel - generally people in your network (or the network you make) >> who >> have made it rich and get excited by your enthusiasm. >> Incubator - if they are around. >> Gov grant - good once you're going. Often dollar for dollar matching. >> Prof. Investor - like an angel who acts more like a VC. >> Bank - seriously. If you're making money, you can go to a bank. >> VC - note, that this is below banks. So if you think the bank >> wouldn't >> lend you money, then VC's probably won't either. >> Priv equity - like roving gangs of professional investors with >> management. >> IPO - remember those? >> Buyout funds - mega big boys. >> >> I've come to realise that most good businesses, that make money and >> bring wealth to the founders are fairly boring, behind the scenes, >> unknown brands. Because we see Youtubes, Skypes, Googles, Dodgeballs, >> MyBlogLog that's how we come up with ideas and follow the path. I >> know >> I did. But it really doesn't happen often. I agree that VC's are the >> most visible, and that's what we hear funds the big wins, but they >> are >> just the ones we hear about. I also agree that angels are not >> visible, >> but I'm not sure I'd want to be visible either. >> >> I'm sort of seeing building the big home run hit consumer startup is >> like trying to be U2. If you love being an entrepreneur, then you >> love >> creating businesses (music), getting customers (fans) and doing it >> year in year out (touring?). >> >> (more raving...) >> >> That being said, if you're passionate and have built a good >> foundation, or done lots of lots of lots of lots of research, then >> you >> might just be able to find someone to invest in you (not your >> business). I reckon it takes about 100 cups of coffee. The first 50 >> to >> tell a good story and the next 50 to find the person who gets turned >> on by that story and has the $$$ to take a bet. >> >> Feel free to ask me for that cup of coffee. I'm certainly no guru, >> and >> I don't have millions to invest but I certainly have failed an awful >> lot, so perhaps I act more as a warning to others? :-) >> >> Back to Pollenating. >> >> On Feb 5, 10:18 pm, silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:28 PM, David Jones >>> <david.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I had come to the conclusion that a community driven y-combinator >>>> model was >>>> the best in the context of this country and investor ecosystem, >>>> so to see >>>> the conversation evolve to this is pretty exciting for me. So for >>>> fun I will >>>> call this ScuBinator (a very poor pun on silicon beach and >>>> incubation). >> >>>> I don't know but, I suspect a few barriers exist to investor-eco- >>>> system >>>> health (thinking of angels mostly here): >>>> a) its a high probability that high networths made their money in >>>> property, >>>> retail or stocks - so early tech is daunting >>>> b) they've not heard of VCs hitting it out of the park >>>> c) there are only a handful of high networths who have made >>>> excess cash OZ. >>>> In the bay there is loads. As said previously its a cycle >>>> d) maybe angel community can't clearly reference enough >>>> successes. Its >>>> pretty sad if radiata, looksmart and resmed are the only >>>> reference points >>>> that broader investors take away. There are other startup that >>>> are great >>>> stories such as aconex, hitwise, atlassian and smaller but still >>>> great >>>> decide interactive, omnisio and probably 20 others that >>>> ScuBinator should be >>>> marketing as Australian successes. >>>> e) investment can be adversarial and so entrpreneur naivity has >>>> been >>>> perpetuated >>>> f) there has been not been an "easy to find" filter or mentoring >>>> vehicle and >>>> I feel SB could ultimately deliver that. >> >>>> There has been y-combinator me-toos spring up and that is because >>>> its a good >>>> model:http://seedfunding.weebly.com/ >>>> I was having beers with YC company omnisio about 9months before >>>> youtube/goog >>>> acquired them, they loved being YC even though others told they >>>> could get >>>> much better terms - why? >> >>>> they had to compete to be a YC company - they had to kick butt to >>>> be >>>> selected >>>> the YC events have profile and a marketing machine precedes them. >>>> This gold >>>> rubs off on YC winners - its up to them to what they make of it >>>> being a YC company puts you on a networking fast track - you meet >>>> and get >>>> mentored those who have been before. >>>> being a YC company increases a chance of exit because the >>>> "network behind >>>> the network" is very high value >> >>>> So, can ScuBinator deliver such things to local startups? >> >>>> yep, thats easy >>>> yes, taking startupcamp as a recent "outcome-focussed" example: I >>>> think a >>>> YC-style competition will deliver a much more focussed, quality >>>> and outcome >>>> related set of contenders than a Pitchfest style. If run twice >>>> per year, >>>> then startups can decide if it is too early to expose their >>>> secret sauce of >>>> business model. >>>> Collectively we SB folk may have 1 or 2 degree network that could >>>> credibly >>>> deliver this >>>> thats tough >> >>>> I respectfully disagree with silky - I think it should be "for- >>>> profit". I >>>> think the mission is to make money and grow as a pragmatic, >>>> focussed >>>> incubator - to introduce non-profit dilutes focus of why it >>>> invest in a >>>> company. >> >>> Not really; the non-profit part only speaks to the fact that the >>> people involved - the board - aren't doing it for themselves only; >>> they're doing it for the companies themselves, and the members. >>> Like a >>> industry super fund. >> >>> As I see it, the board would be filled with people who do other >>> things. Being involved in this organisation is only a side interest; >>> it's not a full time money-making scheme, it's a plan to help grow >>> businesses and the community in general. >> >>>> The Oz startup scene is on the bottom of the Maslow hierarchy, so >>>> it can come back and be all-Omidyar after it has a track record >>>> of wins. My >>>> guess is that winners would be obliged to accept a term-sheet up- >>>> front (a >>>> condition of entry) for ScuBinator to have an COMMON STOCK equity >>>> stake or >>>> convertible note. >> >>>> To me ScuBinator looks like: >>>> - a fund raising engine. It takes the Obama approach to fund >>>> raising, a >>>> little from a lot of people....often. >>>> - a unit trust (I am no accountant but I think ASIC has >>>> shareholder limits >>>> of 50, so the vehicle needs to be sorted) >>>> - it may segment the trust into streams or market specialties >>>> - a mentor hive >>>> - a selection team (who set the criteria for competition/selection) >>>> - an incubator that helps with corp structure, finance, grant >>>> management, >>>> raising, governence >>>> - an filter/advisor for startups that can't win, can't compete, are >>>> preparing >>>> - a buzz machine (to market the value of itself) >>>> - a communication arm to unit trust holders. One of the hardest >>>> things in >>>> terms of taking investment is the reporting regime. With friends/ >>>> family >>>> rounds this can more emotional and high maintenance than originally >>>> intended. >> >>>> this is not to say the cash-is-king comments are invalid, quite the >>>> opposite, I just think this is missing in OZ and we need to fix it. >> >>>> anyway, just some thoughts. >>>> d. >> >>> -- >>> noon silkyhttp://www.boxofgoodfeelings.com/ > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/browse_thread/thread/99938a0fbc691eeb To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
