Flickr Photostream

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

my short jurisdictional/legal question (Canadian law apply for Chinese citizen?): Sino-Forest and Executives Charged With Fraud in Canada -

Sino-Forest and Executives Charged With Fraud in Canada -

despicable acts for sure based on what has been reported..

on legal standpoint, Just curious.. I trust these are Chinese citizen.. what canadian law have they broken (would that be contractual as part of the IPO process?) and would Canada have jurisdictions over these guys?

Really intrigued of what kind of scenarios can play out. Any experts can clarify?

I trust there is no precedent?


Must read if you care of how not to do post M&A integration.. How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet on Gizmodo

How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet:

Brilliant article.. must read to see what lessons can be learnt ..

no hold bar accounts .. see some quotes below.. click through it and read.. (might be a bit long but might be worthwhile for some.)

"That was a big oversight," says Fake. That's an understatement. It was the mother of all fuckups.

"Flickr's last best hope is that Yahoo realizes its value and decides to spin it off for a few bucks before both drop down into a final death spiral. But even if that happens, Flickr has a long road ahead of it to relevance. People don't tend to come back to homes they've already abandoned.

Flickr is still pretty wonderful. But it's lovely in the same way a box of old photos you've stashed under the bed is. It's an archive of nostalgia that you love dearly, on the rare occasion you stumble across it. You pull them out, and hold them up to the light, and remember a time when you were younger, and the Web was a more optimistic place, and it really was almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world.


'via Blog this'

Monday, 21 May 2012

Must read! Want to Know How VC’s Calculate Valuation Differently from Founders?

Want to Know How VC’s Calculate Valuation Differently from Founders?:

Great post.. must read!

give some flavour of the 'bare all' nature of the post.. (click through above now), just see snippet below:

"I turned them down.  They were nonplussed.  They couldn’t understand how I could turn them down when they considered themselves the leader in my field and they had worked so hard to get the deal.  I told them that True Ventures had stuck to their brand name and submitted a totally clean term sheet.  No gotchas.  No option pool shuffle.  No hidden terms.  So they agreed to match True’s term sheet.  I thought to myself, “OK, they were willing to F me when they thought I had no idea what I was talking about . Now that I do they’re willing to accommodate?  Gee, if they treat me like this in good times I wonder how they’d treat me in bad times!”
So to make sure it never happens to you, as a loyal reader of this blog and hopefully an occasional watcher of This Week in Venture Capital, I recorded a video session with my colleague Kelly Hwangon how VCs calculate valuations and he’s created a cap table spreadsheet you can download from DocStoc to plug in all of the terms and you can watch the video here and/or read the text summary below."

Friday, 11 May 2012

My comments re: JPMorgan Loses $2 Billion in Chief Investment Office - Bloomberg

JPMorgan Loses $2 Billion in Chief Investment Office - Bloomberg:

This is not the last news we will hear.. 

there is a market structural issue for the financial sector worldwide. 

nothing has changed since credit crunch of 2008, same players different chairs.. 

even with better monitoring of capital ratios on a national level does not really fix anything as wrong question is asked even by those involved and are in position to do something. (look at reaction of Volcker's rules) 

Using a car analogy, It is not the gears or oil of the engine that need to be monitored better but in this case, I would argue that the 'whole gear box' need to be changed! 

Sadly, no one is powerful enough (with enough money and political clout) to make that happen (as they invariably made money from the same system that they should be 'fixing'), let alone brave enough to suggest a solution..!  (why rock the boat when one could have an easy life in some kind of anonymous tax haven.. key is to 'earn' while you can now!) 

Therefore, the status quo will play it out unless a catalyst of change arrive. future is sadly not bright for the financial world except for those at the top, I am afraid. 

Andy yes, you have to watch and erm be affected by it without much recourse.. (most likely)


Monday, 7 May 2012

My comments re: Buffett and Munger won't buy Facebook stock - May. 6, 2012

Buffett and Munger won't buy Facebook stock - May. 6, 2012:

Totally understand, and of course, they are mostly right... which I totally agree with, but our view point is one of different 'investment horizon' vs the much shorter term 'trader's thinking.

sadly most of the market & investment world at present is about short term (even down to minute by minute frequency trading)..

don't get me wrong, FB & Google are doing great service (for some, still not everyone yet.. and it WILL plateau), key is like most investments knowing when to buy and when to sell, as essentially this is a trader activity..

but likes of Warren is not traders, they buy & hold cash flow rich, profitable firms that will be around for very long time (hopefully when their grand child is even 80/100 years old)

Facebook sadly will probably not (in its present form anyway) but most of the management of FB will not care, as they would have gone to do something else and have built and sold many times already.. they are mostly about 'build and sell'... once again, nothing wrong with that..

for common people: key aspects: "network capital" & "investment horizon" & strategic positioning.. ... The science of networking: what sort of contacts are best? | Guardian careers

The science of networking: what sort of contacts are best? | Guardian careers |

Must read article, and indeed great book (no doubt, not read it yet) by uber networker & founder of Linkedin Reid Hoffman..

seems to me not everyone is Reid (i.e. have the luck of having great network/education from Stanford & lucky to be in the hot bay area..) and lucky enough to join the successful millionaire club after working 3 jobs in 6years (3rd one is the company he founded), see his profile:

Therefore, his point of view and most people he meets are much higher quality (although I know he 'give back' & meet a lot of start up founders and even at his home during weekends etc.) but reality is that most people do not stay being successful at that level long..

based on my personal experiences and observations, most startup CEOs are not successful (who has stats?) and even for those top CEO of major firms from banking, to pharma to media mostly last for limited amount of times (3-6years) and therefore, Reid's rules need to be 'adapted' for comparative 'lesser achievers' (I'm totally under-achieving at present).. namely:

1.) strategic positioning: you need to know where you come from and where you would like to go (in corporate world or in startup/Tech) only then you would be able to position yourself in networking, conferences, or become opinion/thought leader (if you are good at that/wish to become).

2.) network capital: in the guardian article above, it mentioned about strengthening alliances by helping them.. I would like to argue that 'networking capital' should be added to the equation, namely, if you are Reid Hoffman, making a call/email/introduction would be very much different than if it is from Bernie Madoff or even Lord Brown of ex BP now!?  but whilst an introduction or assistance by Lord Brown during his tenure as CEO of BP would have been very different (say in 2005, before his departure in 2007).

Therefore, I would like to argue that key to bear in mind is that your offer of assistance and thus likely return/investment of goodwill (for the future if the-aided would indeed return any favour, as this is not certain) would really depends on your "networking capital" which would probably be proportional to your business success so far, and/or the quality of your assistance.. of course, rule of thumb is that the more successful and respected you are, the more you can help others (should you wish to)

My suggestion therefore would be for those of you that might recognise that your own vulnerability, namely you WILL NOT stay in your position of power 'forever' (unless you own the private company with majority shareholding).. you should get out to network & when you can  help others (I know it is not worth your time now and you are too busy or too important).... one thing is for certain, you 'reap what you sow'... ;-)


Key excerpts below (would recommend you click through above to read the full article:

"Luckily, building your network doesn't have to be like that. Old-school networkers are transactional. They pursue relationships thinking solely about what other people can do for them. Relationship builders, on the other hand, try to help others first. They don't keep score. And they prioritise high-quality relationships over a large number of connections.

Building a genuine relationship with another person depends on at least two abilities. The first is seeing the world from another person's perspective. No one knows that better than the skilled entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs succeed when they make stuff people will pay money for - and that means understanding what's going on in the heads of customers. Likewise, in relationships it's only when you put yourself in the other person's shoes that you begin to develop an honest connection.

The second ability is being able to think about how you can collaborate with and help the other person rather than thinking about what you can get. We're not suggesting that you be so saintly that a self-interested thought never crosses your mind. What we're saying is that your first move should always be to help. A study on negotiation found that a key difference between skilled and average negotiators was the time spent searching for shared interests and asking questions of the other person.

In contrast, the social networks of the people behind successful productions had a healthy balance: there were some strong ties, some weak ties. There was some established trust, but also enough new blood in the system to generate new ideas. Think of your network of relationships in the same way: the best professional network is both narrow/deep (allies with whom you collaborate regularly) and wide/ shallow (weak-tie acquaintances who offer fresh information and ideas)."