Category Archives: Policy Making

CSIRO – what price #innovation?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week Startup Victoria invited scientists and researchers from CSIRO to come and talk about some of the projects they are currently working on. Around 400 people turned up to listen to fascinating presentations on flexible solar panels, 3-D titanium printing, flexible OLED lighting, robotics, wearable kinetic dynamos powering textile-based battery storage systems, high-speed instrumentation using FPGA, and micro-manufacturing processes.

logoFrom the outset, the emphasis of each presentation was on the practical application of these inventions. The goal of the evening was to encourage entrepreneurs and founders from the startup community to connect and engage with CSIRO’s project teams. There was an open invitation to co-operate with CSIRO, via R&D, prototyping, IP licensing and commercialisation initiatives.

The evening was generously sponsored by Cogent, PwC, Elance-oDesk and BlueChilli, hosted by inspire9, and ably compered by Leni Mayo; and in place of the usual Startup Alley was a team of experts offering free advice to startups, organised by Two Square Pegs.

As well as showcasing its latest developments in nano-technology, materials, fabrication, energy generation and workplace automation, CSIRO wanted to remind the audience that they have development and test facilities, which are available for commercial use at very economic rates to the right sort of project. It’s all part of a broader charm offensive, in part designed to raise awareness of the great innovation that has come out of CSIRO (e.g., WiFi…), in part to counter the challenges of reduced government funding ($111m in cuts over 4 years).

To me, CSIRO would appear to be pretty good value for money based on the $700m+ government contribution (which probably accounts for about 70% of current budget). CSIRO generates income from industry for research and other services, and earns royalties from patents and other IP it licenses. But its challenge is to demonstrate its true economic value, either as a contribution to GDP, or as a return on investment to the government (and to the wider community).

On the one hand, CSIRO is not an investment vehicle – yet on one level it operates as an early-stage VC fund, identifying which projects to “invest” in, and securing commercial returns via patents and other licensing streams. Nor is CSIRO a listed company, but without the benefit of its research and inventions, many companies traded on the ASX might not be as financially successful.

Ironically, CSIRO has been involved in research on the future of Australia’s $1.4tn superannuation assets – part of the effort to work out how to put these assets to better use, both to generate more sustainable income for Australian retirees, and to ensure the nation is investing in the right sort of infrastructure, innovation and international growth opportunities.

Traditionally, superannuation funds and other institutional investors have shied away from early-stage projects, especially home-grown startups, either because they are deemed too risky, or because the technology is not well understood. Yet some investors are willing to allocate part of their funds to Silicon Valley VC’s, only to see some of that money flow back into innovative Australian startups (a phenomenon I have previously described as an “expensive boomerang”.)

I’m no economist, but if there was some analysis done on the value of the “CSIRO Dividend”, it would both be able to secure current government funding, and attract long-term funding via the Future Fund or similar investment vehicle.

Post Script: Soon after this post was published, the Federal Government announced its Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, which among other things is seeking to generate a better return on investment on for innovation.

Next week: The Three Pillars Driving the Online Economy

 

Integrity and the Acid Test: How Would it Look as Front Page News?

Posted on by
2

We have been hearing a great deal recently about allegations of political corruption in Australia, culminating in the resignation of a State Premier. This has raised questions about integrity in public office, given the steady stream of stories concerning dubious donations to election campaigns, murky business deals involving politicians and party power-brokers, misuse of trade union members’ assets by officials who were also prominent party figures, opaque political lobbying by industry, tawdry backroom deals to preference election candidates… oh, and the gift of a $3,000 bottle of wine.

Premier Cru-elled de Chateau ICAC?

I won’t dwell on the whys and wherefores of Mr O’Farrell’s resignation, except to say this: If the Premier genuinely believed he did not receive the bottle of wine in question, and his assertion was subsequently shown to be wrong, does this amount to giving false witness? Surely, the act of giving false evidence involves the commission of a deliberate lie, either with the intention of causing a deception or creating an erroneous version of events. It seems that had Mr O’Farrell, as a Member of the New South Wales Parliament, remembered to declare the gift on his register of pecuniary interests, but later forgot about it or failed to recall it when giving evidence, he might have been made to look merely foolish. However, failing to register the gift was either a costly mistake or a grave error of judgement, and by forgetting it altogether (including his handwritten letter of thanks) it reveals a certain level of incompetence. Yet, how many foolish and incompetent politicians manage to keep their jobs, and even get re-elected?

Some commentators have suggested that the nature of the Premier’s resignation showed real integrity – but the truth is, once the facts contradicted his evidence, his position became untenable, and he realised he had no choice in the matter. (The relevant inquiry had in fact already cleared Mr O’Farrell of any suggestion of wrongdoing in the matter under investigation, but now his reputation is probably tarnished by the implication or perception of corrupt behaviour.)

The big lesson from these latest events is that when we get wrapped up in process or get sidetracked by personal, political or financial outcomes, we can easily lose sight of the need to act with integrity and to exercise our authority and powers of influence with transparency. Otherwise, we end up colluding which allows the smell of corruption to permeate. Politics is not alone in these matters – religious institutions, professional sport and corporate boardrooms have more than contributed to the current malaise.

I experienced a small but significant test of personal integrity early on in my career, when I was working as a paralegal in local government. Part of my role was to provide impartial legal advice to local residents facing housing problems. At the time, the area was undergoing intensive gentrification, and many private tenants were being “persuaded” to move out by landlords and property developers. In many cases, all I could do was advise parties of their respective rights, particularly the tenants who had protection from harassment and unlawful eviction under the relevant housing laws. In some cases, the council could mount criminal prosecutions for more serious offences, but this was rare.

So, one day, one of my “clients” (the advice service was free to the public) brought me a personal gift: a bottle of vodka and a bottle of champagne (probably no more than $50 in total value). I initially refused because I did not feel it was necessary or appropriate that he reward me in this way for simply doing my job. However, because my legal advice had enabled him to negotiate a lucrative payout from his landlord to vacate his home, and because he had been brought up to value displays of gratitude, he insisted I keep the gift and refused to take it back.

I could have just taken the bottles and not said anything to anyone, as there were no witnesses. But whether it was my conscience, or the thought that the client might have said something to a third party that may have compromised me, I immediately raised the matter with my manager. He acknowledged my honesty in reporting it (even though I wasn’t really sure what the council policy was on gifts), but said I could keep the present as it was of nominal value, and because I hadn’t sought or solicited a personal benefit. (He also said that if it was a bottle of gin, he might have taken it for himself… but I think he was joking?)

Nowadays, I’m not so sure that I would have got the same response, and over the years, having worked in some high-profile and highly regulated industries, I am aware that there is far more scrutiny around formal compliance, self-regulation, voluntary codes of conduct and business ethics. Of course, individuals need to feel comfortable about the organization they work for and the role they are expected to perform, to ensure there is alignment with their personal values. In addition, I’m often reminded of three questions you should ask yourself in corporate life whenever you have any doubts about the integrity of your actions:

  • Would you still do it if the CEO or Chairman was watching?
  • What might your clients or your shareholders think?
  • How would it look if it made front page news in the morning?

I think the problem for many modern politicians is that they hardly ever say exactly what they are thinking, for fear of letting slip a personal opinion that may differ from their public persona or their party’s stated policy position. (How often nowadays do Ministers resign on a point of personal principle?) Worse, it has been suggested that “loyalty to party” has been displaced by “loyalty to faction”. As a consequence, they are compromised because they forget about individual accountability; and they collude because they either prefer to toe the party line or hide behind the collective shield of cabinet, ministry or faction. In doing so they demonstrate a lack of personal integrity. Unfortunately, when even “benign” or “innocent” collusion emerges, corruption is never very far away.

 

POSTSCRIPT:

Since drafting this blog, I have heard several “wise after the event” comments from the chattering classes, which can be summarised as follows:

  • If the original enquiry was not interested in a bottle of wine, was the Premier “mere” collateral damage of the anti-corruption investigation?
  • How could he possibly have forgotten about such a significant gift, and his written note of thanks? What was going on? What was he thinking? What were his staff doing?
  • The 1959 Grange vintage is somewhat overrated (and well past its best drinking) – which might suggest it was worth less than $3,000 (NB: gifts under $500 do not need to be declared on the Parliamentary register of MPs’ pecuniary interests…)
  • On the other hand, bottles of 1959 Grange are being advertised at over $4,000 because the notoriety has boosted its value
  • It again raises questions about whether the electorate can trust any of our politicians – the backdrop being “lies” and “broken promises” over pre-election commitments

10 Obstacles to Startup Funding in Australia

Posted on by
5

The increasingly popular Lean Startup Melbourne kicked off 2014 with a session on Melbourne’s Startup Ecosystem. And while the tag of World’s Most Livable City is a draw card for attracting startup talent, the apparent lack of institutional investor interest in the startup movement is creating a barrier to funding options.

The Panel: Susan, Brendan, Leni - Chair: Indi Photo by @marksmithers via Twitter

The Panel: Susan, Brendan, Leni – Chair: Indi
Photo by @marksmithers via Twitter

After the traditional beer’n’pizza, an audience of around 300 people was first treated to a couple of lightning talks: Scott Handsaker’s presentation on Melbourne’s startup infrastructure was a great survey of the networking events, meet-up groups, co-working spaces, incubators, tech co-founders, angels and media resources. It also confirmed what everyone already knew, that the local startup community is thriving, and represents a positive force for change and innovation especially in the SME space (which is traditionally seen as the backbone of Australia’s economy). This was followed by Simon Moro’s guide to offshoring/outsourcing development and coding projects – including many helpful and practical tips.

Then came the main event, a panel discussion chaired by Indi from OutTrippin featuring serial entrepreneurs and startup gurus Susan Wu, Leni Mayo and Brendan Lewis. (For a brief but succinct write-up, see my fellow blogger Chris Chinchilla’s account.)

The main takeaways for me were:

1. Strong local infrastructure, but not yet as robust or scalable as Silicon Valley, London or even Dublin (Melbourne ranks #18 in the world)
2. Great community enthusiasm, but not clear what the role of government is or should be (e.g., should public money be used to “pick winners”?)
3. An established coterie of successful angels and VCs, but total lack of interest in the sector by institutional investors (e.g., still focused on investing only for profit, not in changing market behaviours)

In fact, the conspicuous absence of institutional investors at this type of event simply underlines why they actually represent a barrier to funding options for local startups. Here are 10 reasons why I believe instos have not engaged with the local startup community:

  1. They don’t understand the technology – this is not a new complaint; I have heard many entrepreneurs and corporate advisers bemoan the lack of appreciation for new technology developed locally.
  2. Not made here – conversely, there is suspicion about successful technology from overseas that is not yet proven in Australia (which is a challenge for local licensees seeking to develop local market opportunities).
  3. Preference for asset-based lending – partly influenced by regulatory attitudes, banks and other lenders prefer to lend against secured assets, such as plant, equipment or the family home. However, many startups and young entrepreneurs don’t own such assets (or their businesses are designed to be less capital-intensive). Instead, especially in the early stages, they would like to see funding based on cashflow lending linked to their current and future revenues (which are increasingly subscription and annuity based).
  4. Don’t understand the business models – with new technology come new business models, which traditional lenders and investors struggle to get their heads around. Traditional lending criteria are tied to traditional business concepts.
  5. Restrictive investment criteria – post-GFC, banks are more risk averse, and the regulators are also stifling investment product innovation with more stringent risk and regulatory capital management. In addition, institutional operating costs are eating into investor and lender margins, and local investment banking is diminishing, especially as foreign banks continue to scale back their local presence or exit altogether.
  6. Lack of a credible second board for smaller listings – if you don’t want, or cannot justify the cost of a full IPO on the ASX, then your options for raising wider shareholder capital are limited to platforms like ASSOB or NSX, neither of which have quite the same profile as London’s AIM or Hong Kong’s GEM.
  7. Restrictive crowd-funding options – yes, there are active crowd-funding platforms available in Australia (e.g., Pozible), but in most cases the “investor” has to be rewarded by tangible products and services (which has stymied some crowd-funding efforts by local film-makers), otherwise the financial market regulators might come knocking on your door. (This may change, if/when VentureCrowd begins to launch.)
  8. Tax structures can favour equities – without getting all technical, the use of franking credits by Australian companies offers considerable benefits to their shareholders via relevant tax concessions. As such, this makes equities (especially highly liquid stock) attractive to institutional and retail investors, and therefore inhibits the use of alternative funding options.
  9. Limited corporate bond market – most corporate bonds in Australia are bought by institutional investors, and despite various attempts to stimulate demand among retail investors, the vast majority of individual investors can only access these bonds via managed funds (which carry manager fees and other administrative costs), or more complex financial instruments such as hybrid securities. The institutional market itself is not especially liquid (there is limited trading activity), and if the federal government scales back public borrowing, this reduces the availability of treasury benchmarks for corporate bonds.
  10. Lack of loan syndication – it is common in many overseas capital markets to establish small syndicates of institutional investors to participate in corporate lending opportunities. This can help spread the risk for lenders, and diversify the funding base for borrowers. However, because of the loan sizes, and the highly concentrated banking market, there is little need or demand for loan syndication among Australian banks.

Until there is a better way to fund local startups beyond the initial rounds of angel and VC money, Australian entrepreneurs will continue to beat a path to Silicon Valley to raise capital. The irony is, a lot of Australia’s $1.6tn in assets under management are allocated to US money managers to invest back in Australia – in my opinion, this is an expensive boomerang. Instead, we need to build better dialogue (and more direct dealings) between the local startup community and our institutional lenders and investors.

Australian MPs recommend a ban on geo-blocking

Posted on by
3

In a recent blog about geo-blocking, I commented on the frustrations of Australian consumers in trying to access digital content. That blog was written in light of a parliamentary inquiry into IT price discrimination.

ImageA Report by the House of Representatives Infrastructure and Communications Committee has just been published, and makes for some fascinating reading.

The Report reveals a number of key themes:

  • There is strong evidence that Australian consumers pay between 50 and 100 per cent more for the same product than consumers in comparable markets.
  • Price differentials cannot be fully explained by the so-called “Australia tax” (i.e., the relatively higher costs of doing business locally, due to wages, taxes, market regulation, shipping costs, economies of scale, etc.).
  • Consumer complaints about price discrimination are not being taken seriously by the industry as a whole.
  • Industry participants either deflected responsibility for price discrimination to other parts of the supply chain, or blamed inconsistent market practices as justifying the need for different regional and national price policies.
  • Despite being given the opportunity by the Committee to defend their pricing practices in public, most industry participants declined to co-operate in full; this gave rise to Apple, Adobe and Microsoft each being compelled to give evidence.
  • A number of submissions made by industry participants appeared to be disingenuous, self-serving, evasive and even misleading.

The Committee accepts that IT vendors are entitled to run their businesses as they see fit, and there is nothing to stop them from charging whatever prices they like. There was also general acknowledgment that copyright holders must be able to protect their IP assets.

However, geo-blocking (especially of digital content) simply reinforces price disparity based on a customer’s geographical location, rather than protecting the interests of copyright holders. Further, although so-called “Technological Protection Measures” (TPM) or “Effective Technological Measures” (ETM) and “Digital Rights Management” systems (DRM) may have a legitimate role in controlling copyright (and as such they enjoy protection under the relevant Copyright Law), their net effect has been to limit competition and to lock consumers into “walled gardens” which places considerable power in the hands of IT vendors as to how, when and where consumers access content.

In short, the Committee made several recommendations designed to address price discrimination and restricted market access imposed on Australian consumers, including:

  • Remove any remaining restrictions on parallel imports (in a bid to increase market competition among distributors and retailers).
  • Clarify the legal circumvention of TPM/ETM/DRM barriers that are purely designed as geo-blocking tools (rather than copyright protection measures).
  • Educate Australian consumers about their ability to buy cheaper goods from overseas, or to legally circumvent geo-blocking (without compromising product warranties or infringing copyright).
  • As a last resort, place a ban on geo-blocking and outlaw contacts or terms of service that rely on and enforce geo-blocking.

Unfortunately, while this Report is of great significance to the Australian digital economy, and seeks to achieve a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the interests of consumers, it is likely to be overshadowed by concerns about tax avoidance in respect to multinational companies. No doubt Australian consumers will make a connection between global IT companies whose products they buy, and transnational tax minimization strategies linked to transfer pricing policies and the routing of content royalties and copyright licensing fees via low-tax jurisdictions.