I second this... Online connection for something like this would be very important... In addition, it would be best if it were at a time/ date when it was possible for people working 9-5 in Perth to not miss the entire thing due to being at work/behind firewalls.
On 11/02/2009, at 8:05 PM, Pieter Peach wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
