As long as you stream the session for those of us not in Sydney, otherwise keep those emails coming.
Pieter On 11/02/2009, at 21:55, Deniss <deniss.su...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So we've got 80 something messages and already last Friday most of the > people couldn't keep up with the discussion. > Would it be possible for everybody who had strong opinion about the > topic to meet somewhere (maybe with the white board) and have a > discussion about that? > If somebody could lead the discussion then it should be faster way to > get the answer to the question: Whether young entrepreneurs in > Australia have favourable environment business or something is > missing? > > > > On Feb 6, 10:04 pm, Warren Seen <warren.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the issue with unit trusts which I was not aware of when I >> mentioned them was there is a limit of 50 unitholders per trust? >> >> Also, there was the issue of ASIC rules around solicitation of >> investment that someone else raised? These would seem to be the only >> structural blockers to the setup you've proposed... >> >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Williams >> <william...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Phil, >> >>> I like the racehorse analogy. >> >>> Given that model, easiest structure is probably a unit trust per >>> round, with >>> a separate body (the actual incumbator group) acting as the >>> administrator... >>> With the right setup that's reasonably scalable. >> >>> I think capping the shares is a good idea - you might increase the >>> cap for >>> previous investors, and/or otherwise give them preference. >> >>> J >> >>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Phil Sim <philip...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>> Warren, yep I think just treating each round as a separate entity >>>> is >>>> absolutely the way to go! Simplicity rules. >> >>>> So I'm trying to keep the momentum on this going and evolve >>>> something >>>> as dead simple as possible, without it falling into a whole or >>>> differing opinions. >> >>>> 1. 500 shares at $500. People can buy multiple shares but I think >>>> we >>>> should cap it it at say 5 or 10 shares >>>> 2. That money is invested in a number of start-ups for up to 10 per >>>> cent equity. I've changed my mind and think 1 batch would be best. >>>> Standard legal agreements, etc need to be employed to keep down the >>>> overview. I'd suggest to use a Digg-style voting site that allows >>>> people to pick the companies that are invested in >>>> 3. Have 2 to 3 low-key networking events per year to update >>>> shareholders on progress of start-ups and provide networking >>>> benefit. >>>> Also use social media/email to provide on-going >>>> discussion/advice/mentoring >>>> 4. We'll need a small board with people who commit to investing a >>>> bit >>>> of sweat. As I've said I'm happy to do so on the publicity/ >>>> marketing >>>> side of things, but we really need someone or organisation to put >>>> their hands up to do the legal work. And a coder/development >>>> company >>>> who could whip up a few of the webside things that would automate >>>> the >>>> crowd-sourcing aspect of this. Someone with financial knowledge. >>>> Someone with good links into the angel community >>>> 5. The organisation is positioned as a way to get companies from >>>> seed >>>> to angel funding. To provide them with an automatic network of >>>> assistance, guidance and links to investors. >>>> 6. As an orgnisation we're able to cut deals with partner >>>> companies so >>>> our start-ups get either free or cheap services. eg. Web hosting. I >>>> reckon I could go to my community of IT PR companies with an >>>> "adopt a >>>> start-up" proposal. >> >>>> Please keep evolving this but for me the perfect analogy for this >>>> is >>>> Racehorse Syndication. People invest a bit of money with the idea >>>> of >>>> primarily having a bit of fun but with the feint hope that their >>>> 'investment' will turn into a superstar and they'll make a motza. >> >>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Warren Seen >>>> <warren.s...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM, silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> I personally don't see the point of creating yet another VC firm, >>>>>> which is what you guys are talking about with the investment- >>>>>> based >>>>>> approach ... >> >>>>> I'm feeling the same, I think this discussion is drifting >>>>> towards a >>>>> miniature version of that model, with all of the pros and cons it >>>>> entails. At the same point in time, I think adding contrived >>>>> membership "benefits" distracts from the core of the idea, which >>>>> is to >>>>> get a sufficient amount of cash to somewhere where it can have >>>>> some >>>>> utility. If we go back to the example of kiva.org, people do it >>>>> for >>>>> the sake of loaning the money to someone who has more use for it >>>>> at >>>>> that time, not to become members of their website. >> >>>>> I think this needs to work somewhat like a distributed "FFF" >>>>> fundraising, which means low cost of investment, ($500 is >>>>> probably as >>>>> low as you want to go), with an equally low expectation on >>>>> return. If >>>>> people want to put more in so they feel like they've got some real >>>>> skin in the game, then fine, allow multiple units to be bought >>>>> up to a >>>>> sensible limit. A lot more people (particularly those of us with >>>>> families) can justify a $500 annual gamble, but $2k and upwards >>>>> on a >>>>> speculative investment would be difficult to get "approved" ;-) >> >>>>> I think it should also be a per-year thing, spread the risk and >>>>> the >>>>> return amongst those who put their money up for a particular >>>>> "round" >>>>> but don't let them be diluted by someone who comes in late to the >>>>> game. This would probably also simplify the administration of >>>>> things >>>>> as you'd have fund A, B, C and people could be in/out of a >>>>> particular >>>>> round as they so desired without affecting the value of their >>>>> previous >>>>> investment. Managing a rotating list of members and how they >>>>> enter/exit sounds too complicated for the amounts we're talking >>>>> about. >> >>>>> But hey, we have 490 members on this list, shouldn't be hard to >>>>> come >>>>> up with 490 different ways this could work, seems we're already >>>>> heading that way! :-) > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
