Fundamentally, the government only looks to intervene where there is a clear market failure, and targeted intervention (through grants and other means) has a clear impact. In the early stage space, it has long been recognised that there is a clear market failure/valley of death between R&D and full commercialisation of a product/service/solution through a company.
This breaks down into a number of areas, including attracting and retaining talent (nice job on the share options), getting expert advice, etc...but the fundamental issue is lack of risk capital. There's just a massive disconnect between the huge risks and potential rewards of investing in start-ups. If you invest in a small Pty Ltd company in Australia, statistically, you're likely to do your dough - VC returns in Australia are "poor" (and in many cases negative) even with government support (the published IIF stats make interesting reading), and the results of angel investing are more likely to resemble a private sector grant program (anecdotally, how many angels do you know that have made the fabled 100:1 return on an investment ?). One of the key issues that drive this is the lack of an exit or liquidity for the investment - very few start-ups go public, relatively few are bought by another company, and most don't pay dividends to investors. Statistically, it's an investment black hole - money goes in...nothing comes out (or in government speak - another well documented market failure). However, it is possible to make money by investing in this space. This involves better qualification, filtering, good management and expert support, early adoption into the channels, and of course, an appropriate level of funding. Commercialisation Australia looks to support this whole process; however, there's only limited resources (80 odd grants last year and a target of 150 ?), and the grant process is challenging...but in principle, it's well targeted. The R&D Tax Credit is another program that is potentially good - recycling money that has already been spent on developing a product, and making it available for commercialising the product. It's great that it avoids picking winners, and is widely available...however the inherent emphasis on physical products could well make it less useful in the software industry. (There is a more general issue with government support programs generally favouring companies that physically make things, but that's a different subject). Although these programs (and they're the main two) help the commercialisation process, they don't actively help the two key blockages - getting money in...and getting money out. I haven't really seen any programs focussed on providing liquidity for investments (eg. facilitating micro-cap markets, early stage debt funding, etc). However, in terms of facilitating investment into companies there are a number of things that can be done, from micro level items such as funding the facilitation and qualification process for the various angel groups such as Sydney Angels (which is currently done by volunteers), through to more macro support for angel investors (who are far more important to the ecosystem that the VC's), the best of which would be an angel co-investment program that matches angel investment dollar for dollar, and a bit like the R&D tax credit would be an entitlement as long as the investment fit the matching criteria (eg. less than $250k in a small, unprofitable, technology company). Angel co-investment is well established abroad, and would work well here - I'd vote for it :-) In the meantime, as Geoff suggested, once you've exhausted CA, the R&D tax credit, and EMDG, assume that you're on your own...and if you don't have your own funds...get to revenue early... Good luck, Matthew. On Oct 26, 1:32 am, Geoff McQueen <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, get out of the way. > > No seriously, the most important thing the Australian government can do > right now for startups is to fix their bullshit tax treatment for shares and > options for your key hires in Australia. The way it stands no, without fancy > footwork, your staff are subject to paying income tax on the paper value of > shares and options when they transfer into their name, but when they only > have paper value. And we know how liquid privately held stock in a high risk > startup is. Sure, if the shares end up being worthless in 3 years you can > include that on your tax return as an adjustment and get your money back, > but that's numerous years the ATO has locked up real money and for startup > folks that hurts a lot. > > It makes our industry and ability to retain talent highly uncompetitive by > international standards. And I'm not talking about tax rates - although > payroll tax and the general tax rates compared to places like Singapore > are noticeably different in Australia of course, but they're broadly > comparable with the US - but the principle of taxing stock/options as an > income received before any cash changes hands anywhere. This is an important > part of how an early stage company pays smart and hard working people when > they don't have a lot of cash, and frankly it sucks. Thanks Labor for your > class warfare - you're screwing poor startups and young people, while > negative gearing and stupidly concessional superannuation rates reward those > who are already quite comfortable thankyou-very-much. > > In terms of what they're focusing their efforts on, from what I can tell the > Commercialisation Australia project is akin to something you'd see in Yes > Minister. Sure, there are funds here available for at risk investments. You > have to be investment grade though, but to be eligible you have to prove > you've gone through the process of trying to raise professional investment - > VC - and been rejected. Then we'll look at funding you, because you've > proven you're investment grade by failing to secure professional > investment?!?! Oh, and by the way, we don't see software/tech as real > innovation. Even though we can see a lot of the most > valuable<http://www.google.com/finance?q=apple>and > innovative <http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG> companies in the > world are software/tech driven, and one of the world's best living > entrepreneurs has emphasised the role that software plays in the future of > every > industry<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651225091562...>, > we're more interested in a dude building something in a shed or a lab that > we can see. > > The things that are working from my perspective as an entrepreneur are the > R&D Tax Concession (so, in a sense, the govt isn't meddling but instead > providing a broad economic incentive that is rules based to emphasize a > certain behaviour, in this case, increased R&D spending), as well as some of > the targeted export assistance which operates on a dollar for dollar > matching basis. Any Australian startup worth its salt should be looking at > international markets from day one because Australia is just too damn small, > conservative and insignificant in the world; if you're in tech, tap some of > the export support funding, often funded at a state level, and get over here > to Silicon Valley, at least for a look around and to see how the big game is > played and how worthy you really are to play it. > > Finally, the biggest risk I see with the thinking that is behind this > question is that entrepreneurs will spend their time and energy trying to > change government policy, instead of focusing their time and energy into > building a startup that tries to change the world. Australian politicians > and policies are particularly hard to change to our way of thinking; the > vast majority started out as some sort of hack in an industrial relations > setting (union folks or lawyers working for unions or employer groups) so > they don't have a clue what it means to be entrepreneurial, and some > actively despise the concept (because, entrepreneurs don't join unions or > employer organisations who then have these IR fights that the rest of us > just don't have time for). Aside from being almost completely unfamiliar > with our world and severely under-appreciative of its role in driving > innovation and economic growth, they're then also almost all in the school > of rational economics which dictates that governments shouldn't pick > winners, unless of course they have lots of union workers (eg, the > Australian car industry) or are otherwise politically sensitive. So, they > profess to want to stay out of the market, and if we tried to convince them > of the merits of being more involved/supportive, they're deaf to us because > we're not their *type* of people. > > So, my advice is concentrate on your startup, make it successful, and with > the money you make from that, invest in StartMate and let's build this thing > from the ground up. If the government gets too difficult, we'll just hire > the same lawyers and accountants that other folks use and create special > purpose vehicles offshore and do an end-run around their stupidity. > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:35, Adam Brimo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > While I've been working on my startup over the past year, I've been > > researching government support and initiatives for new businesses. I > > didn't find a whole lot that was applicable and it appears that not > > many VC/angel deals are done for early stage companies. I'd heard of > > programs overseas such as Startup Chile and Singapores matching scheme > > that sounded great. > > > So I emailed the innovation minister Kim Carr to see if they were > > planning anything similar and what else is being done for startups. > > The responses are somewhat long and really just list the existing > > initiatives, however I've posted them (with permission) here: > >http://blog.mijura.com/post/11904346350 > > > What does everyone else think? Between StartMate, AngelCube, > > PushStart, SydStart, this list and many other private ventures - will > > it make a difference if the government provides more support to > > startups? > > > Thanks > > > Adam > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach > > Australia mailing list. Visthttp://siliconbeachaustralia.orgfor more > > > Forum rules > > 1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself. > > 2) No jobs postings. You can usehttp://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs > > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en > > -- > Geoff McQueen > Founder & CEO > Hiive Systems > > Phone: 1.877.425.7315 (US) - 1800 2 44483 (AU) > Cell/Mobile: 650.450.4384 (US) - 0414.678.466 (AU) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more Forum rules 1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself. 2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
