SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12895)7/20/2002 8:02:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
To Regain Confidence

By Robert E. Rubin
The Washington Post
Sunday, July 21, 2002

There has been much confusion and uncertainty among investors and in Washington about the economy and the stock market, and about what to do in response to a seemingly significant loss of confidence in our system. Much of the focus has been on accounting and corporate governance. These issues are important, but I think the restoration of confidence and the establishment of sound fundamentals going forward require a much broader focus.

To focus first on accounting and corporate governance: Clearly reforms are needed to deal with the systemic issues revealed by the recent spate of corporate problems, as are specific enforcement actions where appropriate. The accounting and corporate governance bill passed recently by the Senate seems to me on the whole sensible and responsive to these needs. Similarly, the New York Stock Exchange has issued thoughtful proposals on corporate governance. Expensing of stock options is, in my view, worth serious consideration, though practical problems such as valuation need to be resolved. And the conflicts between research and investment banking need a dispositive, industry-wide solution.

These accounting and corporate governance problems developed over time -- as seems to happen after extended good times -- but only really came to the fore during the past year. From the time the magnitude of the problems became clear, the need was for a response that was energetic, effective and as rapid as possible. But that response -- both in regulatory and legislative changes and in enforcement -- should be balanced and appropriate. Our accounting and corporate governance systems have great strengths -- in allowing for decisive management decisions, rapid change and agility, experimentation and risk taking -- and those strengths should not be unwisely eroded.

Having said that, these accounting and corporate governance issues -- though very important -- are only part of a much broader question of how to best promote confidence and strong fundamentals, for the short and the long term.

That was exactly the question the new administration faced in the beginning of 1993, and the strategy then put in place contributed centrally to the remarkably strong economic conditions and sound economic fundamentals for the balance of the 1990s. Unemployment fell from over 7 percent to 4 percent and was under 5 percent for 40 consecutive months; private investment in productive equipment grew at double-digit rates for eight years; annual productivity growth more than doubled by the end of the period; inflation was low; GDP growth averaged roughly 4 percent, and 20 million new private-sector jobs were created. Moreover, instead of the huge 10-year deficits projected by the Office of Management and Budget at the end of 1992, deficits were reduced and in time surpluses began.

Certain imbalances did develop -- for example, the levels of consumer and corporate debt, the level of the stock market, and excess capacity -- as they always do after extended good times, and an adjustment period was inevitable. How difficult that period was going to be would be affected by many factors, very much including the actions of government. Also, the legacy of the 1990s provided strong fundamentals to ameliorate this adjustment, e.g., a large fiscal surplus, strong productivity growth, low unemployment, more open markets around the world and a healthy banking system.

In my view, we need to restore the sound, broad-based strategy that was so central to the prosperity of the '90s. More specifically, I would focus especially on the following:

1) Virtually the entire $5.6 trillion surplus projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in January 2001, including $2.5 trillion of Social Security surplus, has now been dissipated. I wrote when last May's 10-year tax cuts were being debated that their direct cost -- later estimated by the CBO as $1.7 trillion including debt service -- and even more important, their indirect cost in undermining political cohesion around fiscal discipline, threatened the federal government's long-term fiscal position. And that is precisely what has happened.

Long-term fiscal discipline and a sound long-term fiscal position contribute substantially, over time but also in the short term, to lower interest rates, increased consumer and business confidence, and to attracting much-needed capital from abroad to our savings-deficient country. In addition, a sound long-term fiscal position would far better enable us to meet our long-term Social Security and Medicare commitments.

The portion of the 10-year tax cut that occurred in the short-term may well serve a useful expansionary purpose at a time of economic weakness. But the great preponderance of this tax cut occurs in outer years. Moreover, nobody is talking about a tax increase; the question is whether the cuts enacted for later years should be canceled. In my view, all matters pertaining to taxes and spending should be on the table, with a commitment to reestablishing a sound long-term fiscal position for the federal government.

2) Trade liberalization and our own open markets contributed greatly to our economic well-being during the 1990s, and are critically important looking forward. The president should be given trade promotion authority, and the recently adopted steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies -- which present such a threat to global trade liberalization and to business confidence in the outcome of the struggle over continued globalization -- should be corrected. Also -- a related matter -- we should be prepared to engage in and lead an effective and sensible response to financial crisis abroad when our interests can be affected.

3) Budgeting priorities should heavily emphasize preparing our future workforce to be competitively productive in the global economy, including improving our public school system and equipping the poor to join the economic mainstream.

Finally, we must deal effectively -- building on the strong response to the terrible attack of Sept. 11 -- with the immensely complex challenges of terrorism and geopolitical instability that are of enormous importance to our economy as well as to our national security.

Much of this is difficult, substantively and politically, but the willingness to deal with exceedingly difficult public issues was central to our economic well-being in the '90s and is centrally important today and for the years and decades ahead.
________________________________________________
The writer was head of the National Economic Council from 1993 to 1994 and secretary of the treasury from 1995 to 1999. He is now director and chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup Inc.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com

_________________________

btw, Lizzie thanks for sharing your insights on the thread.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12895)7/20/2002 8:36:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
VCs Don't Want Your Money Anymore

BusinessWeek Small Business: VENTURE CAPITAL
By Mara Der Hovanesian in New York
Fri Jul 19, 2002

Venture capitalists have a problem that most anyone would envy: too much money. During the boom times, VC funds, which finance startup companies, reaped staggering profits, and an embarrassment of riches from grateful investors.

What a difference a bear market makes. Now, most VC funds are underwater and quality investment pickings are slim. Foundations, pension funds, and endowments--the limited partners, or clients, of VC funds--are getting really edgy. What's more, nobody is in the mood to tie up money for the five years or more it takes typically for a high-risk venture to bear fruit.

NEGATIVE INFLUENCES. That has set in motion an unprecedented retreat by the VCs. They are shrinking their billion-dollar funds, giving back money and forfeiting management fees. It's not that they're cutting refund checks, but rather releasing investors from their contractual commitments to fork over more money for future investments. "It's the moral equivalent of a refund check," says Kirk Walden, national director of venture-capital research at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Through June, the givebacks have totaled at least $3 billion. And that's a fraction of what's to come, observers say. In fact, VCs may end up returning about $50 billion to investors in the next year. That's roughly equal to what the global venture community laid out in investments in the four years through 1998, before the floodgates broke in 2000 and a record-breaking $105 billion was invested.

Why are the VCs handing back cash that they normally scramble to attract? "The issue here is the return that you can expect to get on the money two years from now," says Robert C. Roeper, managing director of Boston VC Venture Investment Management. "It might just be negative."

MANY UNHAPPY RETURNS. Judging by VCs' recent performance, he could be right. When first-quarter performance figures are published before the end of July, 2002, they're expected to show losses. Last year, VC funds posted a collective loss of 28% -- the first since 1970, when the numbers were first tracked. It's a blemish on an otherwise stellar record: The funds have earned 26.4% a year for the last decade and 18% a year since 1980.

Marquee names are leading the charge to hand back cash. Texas-based Austin Ventures Texas returned $670 million from a $1.5 billion fund in June. Charles River Ventures cut its latest $1.2 billion fund by more than 60% just weeks earlier. They followed a slew of venerable Silicon Valley firms -- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Accel Partners, and Mohr, Davidow Ventures -- that had cut their billion-dollar funds by up to 32%. Cutbacks at those three firms alone took a total of $800 million out of the investment pool.

To be sure, the refunds aren't about altruism. A firm that gives back money now will likely have an easier time raising more of it when the going gets good again. Meantime, they're forfeiting future fees -- of about 2% a year on collected funds, plus a cut of any profits -- they would have earned had they called in the money, though they're still getting paid for idle funds they have in hand. "We're walking away from several million dollars to make a statement that this business has way too much money," says Ted R. Dintersmith, general partner of the 32-year-old Charles River Ventures, whose clients include Notre Dame University, Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ - News), and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "It's the right thing to do, but it's a painful thing to do."

QUICK PROFITS? NOT ANYMORE. Even with the downsizing, there's still too much money in the pipeline. In the first quarter--the most recent data available--VCs invested $6 billion, equivalent to a more typical annual investment of $25 billion. But there's still an $80 billion overhang of uninvested capital from the 1999-2001 banner years. "There's enough money in the bank to last the industry for several more years," says Walden of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The VCs' conundrum is the lack of exit strategies. Even when they find entrepreneurs worthy of funding, VCs are no longer able to unload their upstarts quickly and reap easy profits. The stock market is sour on both initial public offerings and mergers, and the outlook is worsening: According to Thomson Financial Venture Economics, VCs raised $1.96 billion through IPOs and mergers and acquisitions in the first quarter this year--a 40% drop from the final quarter of 2001.

The meteoric growth in assets during the bull market sowed the seeds of the VCs' current problems. Too much money chased a lot of bad business models. And those bad deals are still on the books. Dintersmith notes that few of the 300-odd private optical-networking companies that got financing have any hope of survival. "I don't think you're going to see 298 become successful," he says. "It's going to be a bloodbath."

SUCH A HANGOVER. Not so long ago, any entrepreneur with a half-baked idea could raise millions from VCs. Follow-on financing deals were a cinch. For a fast payoff, VCs pushed companies out assembly-line fashion to frenzied markets that bid up their shares. Investors couldn't pile in fast enough. "In the old days, you didn't worry too much about the fundamentals of the business. The arrogance was unbelievable," says Peter B. Yunich, managing partner of New York Metropolitan Venture Partners. "The VCs that raised a lot of money during the halcyon days, to put it bluntly, have not performed well."

As a result, VC funds are now raising less than their initial targets for the first time in memory. In June, for example, Murphree Venture Partners, a venture-capital firm based in Houston, closed its fifth fund at $28 million, well below its $100 million goal. Others are scuttling their plans altogether: Bank One Corp.'s private-equity arm shelved a $200 million fund of funds, citing a lack of interest among high-net-worth clients.

Although painful in the short term, the current shakeup will only help the market, say fund managers. "Our portfolio companies are going to have to use less cash to get to profitability," says Robert P. Badavas, who is chief operating officer of Atlas Venture in Waltham, Mass. "We're adding some conservatism back into the model." Atlas, which has $2.4 billion of committed capital, cut the size of its sixth fund, the Atlas Fund VI, by 12%, to $850 million, in June.

HALF MEASURES. New VC financing rounds are about half the size they were in boom times -- from $10 million to $15 million for each startup. More seasoned entrepreneurs and fewer twentysomethings are making the grade. "A year from now you'll see a stronger investing climate, and VCs will be more aggressive in competing for companies with a strong operational focus," Yunich says. "Innovation doesn't stop just because the Nasdaq is down."

Venture capitalists, who kept the champagne flowing during the tech bubble, are now nursing their own hangover. They'll continue to attract a trickle of money, even during tough times, because they're an important asset class to big pension funds and foundations. But to persuade investors to return in force, they'll have to keep sight of the lessons of the bust.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12895)7/21/2002 6:16:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Message 17769228