Tag: fred wilson

• How you can be more lucky

  I don’t have any tattoos and I have no plans of ever getting one, but if I were in the market for something to tattoo on my body, this Latin phrase would be a solid contender: Audentes fortuna iuvat. It translates into something along the lines of: Fortune favors the bold. And it’s one of my favorite proverbs.

  The supposed meaning behind the phrase is that Fortuna, the Goddess of fortune and luck, was believed to be more likely to help those that took risks, took action, and were generally bold. And what I like about this is that it doesn’t make luck some abstract thing that people either have or don’t. It firmly transforms luck into something that you yourself can create. That is, if you want it.

  Earlier this month, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote a post on his blog called Get Lucky, where he talks about the research that psychologist Richard Wiseman did on so-called lucky and unlucky people. Wiseman concluded the following:

  My research revealed that lucky people generate good fortune via four basic principles. They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition, create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations, and adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.

  Obviously, the common thread between these two ideas is that luck is something that you yourself can control. Lucky is a state of mind. Whether you believe in greater powers or not, people at least as far back as the Roman times identified the benefits of taking action, risk, and of boldness. It creates opportunity. And it creates luck. 

  I try and do as much of that as I can.

  2014.08.25

• The death of driving

  

  Last night my father and I were walking to dinner and he commented to me that he thinks my generation will be a lot healthier than his–at least on average–given how much more my generation walks. I responded by reaffirming to him how little I drive these days and how much I enjoy that.

  Then today, I was watching this short clip of the The High Road with celebrity chef Mario Batali, where he interviews venture capitalist Fred Wilson. During their tour around New York City, Mario asks Fred what he thinks the future of transportation will be. Fred responds by saying that nobody will drive anymore. He then went on to say that the technology for driverless cars is already ready, but that we as a society just aren’t ready for it, yet.

  Finally, on my way home from wakeboarding today, I stumbled upon this Guardian Cities article talking about Helsinki’s ambitious plan to make owning a car pointless. By 2025, the goal is have a “point-to-point mobility on-demand system” that will integrate all forms of mobility into one booking and payment platform. Think everything from public transit to carpools to taxis. 

  As I read on, I then discovered that Helsinki is already offering on-demand public minibuses that allow people to specify their own routes on their smartphone. The system then aggregates all of the requests and establishes the most efficient route based on the immediate demand. Coincidentally enough, it’s quite similar to a use case I wrote about for driverless cars.

  All of this got me thinking that one day we’ll probably look back at that time when people used to drive their own vehicles around as some antiquated and hilarious moment from the past.

  Image: Observatoire

  2014.07.13

• Without trust, you have nothing

  I was reading Fred Wilson’s AVC.com blog this morning (as I do every morning), and I thought his post on trust was a really important one. He was talking about it in the context of building successful web applications, but I don’t think it’s only applicable to internet businesses.

  As marketer Seth Godin wrote on his blog earlier this year, the most important questions are not:

  Is my price low enough?

  Is it reliable enough?

  Do I offer enough features?

  Am I on the right social media channels?

  Is the website cool enough?

  Am I promising enough?

  No, the most important question in marketing something to someone who hasn’t purchased it before is,

  “Do they trust me enough to believe my promises?”

  Without that, you have nothing.

  I thought this was such an awesome, yet simple, post that I actually circulated it to a bunch of people in the office after I read it. Because whether you’re marketing widgets, marketing private cloud storage, marketing to investors, or marketing new condominiums, that question of trust is paramount.

  And it’s for that reason that I think social media and mediums such as blogging have become so important. Customers want to feel like they trust you before they buy your product. The best brands know this and forge “relationships” with their customers. And with the tools at our disposal today, it’s become a lot easier for companies to do that.

  2014.06.27

• Airbnb for retail spaces raises $7.3 million

  Though it’s sometimes common to downplay “this for that” startups (that is, derivative startups that try and borrow a model and use it in another market), Storefront–which can be described as Airbnb for retail spaces–has just raised a $7.3 million Series A round.

  Storefront is a marketplace for short term retail space (think pop-up shops). People with space simply create a listing and decide how much they would like to charge per day, per week or per month. In doing so, Storefront “helps all sorts of brands, sellers, and merchants to create their first brick and mortar retail experience.”

  What I find interesting about Storefront, and other startups like Airbnb, is that they’re really rewriting the way real estate marketplaces work. Instead of large retail landlords (Storefront) and multinational hotel operators (Airbnb), technology is allowing individuals to now participate in these marketplaces. Supply is being decentralized and anyone with extra space can participate.

  You could argue that these sorts of informal and short term rentals are nothing new, but I don’t think there’s ever been the possibility of scaling up like there is today. I mean, just look at how much attention Airbnb has been getting in New York. These startups are having an impact on the way the larger market functions.

  Change is coming. And I think we’ll see a lot more of it in the real estate space.

  2014.04.28

• Civic leaders, here’s why people need to love your city

  I was planning to write about something else today, but then I saw Fred Wilson’s post on revitalizing urban cores and I had to switch topics, because I think he makes a great point about turning around declining cities:

  I’ve been asked by civic leaders from places like Newark, Cleveland, Buffalo, and a number of other upstate NYC cities that have suffered a similar fate how they can do the same thing. They all talk about tax incentives, connecting with local research universities, and providing startup capital. And I tell them that they are focusing on the wrong thing.

  You have to lead with lifestyle. If you can’t make your city a place where the young mobile talent leaving college or grad school wants to go to start their career, meet someone, and build a life, all that other stuff doesn’t matter.

  It’s exactly the same point I made in my post entrepreneurship as economic development strategy. You can throw as much money as you’d like at startups, but if young people don’t want to live in your city then you have a serious problem.

  Fred goes on to talk about Tony Hsieh’s (founder of Zappos) initiatives in downtown Las Vegas:

  When Tony moved Zappos from the suburbs to the former City Hall in downtown Vegas a few years ago, he decided to invest $350mm in a massive urban revitalization project. He set aside $200mm to purchase land at bargain prices and the other $150mm to invest in three areas, arts and culture, small businesses (restaurants, cafes, bars, markets, boutiques, etc), and tech startups. $50mm is going into each area.

  It’s an example of leading with lifestyle, urbanism and city building, rather than purely economics. And I think it’s the way to go. But to be clear, I’m not suggesting that the focus should be on large capital projects, such as stadiums and infrastructure. I’m not convinced those are the most effective catalysts. There’s no silver bullet here.

  Instead, I think the answer is in building, from the ground up, a real sense of community and place. People need to love your city. That’s easier said than done though.

  2014.03.16

• All sorts of bubbles

  Fred Wilson (New York VC) wrote a post on his blog this morning called The Bubble Question. In it, he talks about how everyone asks him whether or not there’s a tech bubble, which he has been asked for the past 4 years now. It reminded me of the debates that are also happening in the real estate community (particularly in Canada).

  The thesis of his post is this:

  I learned in business school that the multiple of earnings one should pay for a business is roughly the inverse of interest rates.

  In other words, as interest rates drop, people are willing to pay more for the business or asset in question. And it’s because they can’t find the yields anywhere else.

  The same phenomenon, you could argue, is also happening in the real estate space. Typically, income producing real estate assets are assessed using capitalization rates (or cap rates), which is defined by the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the property (revenue – expenses, but excluding financing costs), divided by the price of the property.

  The real estate equivalent of what Fred is talking about is cap rate compression. When cap rates drop it means you’re paying more for the same amount of yield (or NOI). One of the reasons that might happen is because people are anticipating that the asset will appreciate. But it could also be because interest rates are so low that investors will take whatever returns they can get. 

  So you could argue that the market is just responding to the macro economy. And since the feds are probably waiting for global growth to pickup (before raising rates), one could argue that the status quo is just going to continue. Ideally, it’ll continue until robust economic growth is able to take the place of cheap money.

  2014.03.13

• Invest in whatever China blocks

  Last weekend I posted a poll asking readers what they think the “capital of the world” will be in 2050. It was really the 2nd half of a two part poll. The first one asked what people think the capital of the world is today. And the majority of people said New York.

  While New York still came out on top in the 2nd poll, the most notable difference is the rise of Chinese cities. Behind New York is Shanghai, Hong Kong and Beijing. And in a way, this order makes sense to me. China would like to see Shanghai on top of Hong Kong, because it’s perceived as being more Chinese (Hong Kong is still too British). But both are still more economically important than Beijing.

  Still, my own belief is that China is going to need to go through some structural changes before its cities really have a chance of dethroning New York (or London, depending on your vote in the first poll). And I think it has to do with openness, transparency and freedom. Fred Wilson probably put it best when he said to basically invest in whatever China blocks:

  As our [Bitcoin] panel was winding down, Superintendant Lawsky asked what countries were doing it right. I didn’t answer that question but instead decided to talk about one that isn’t doing it right and brought up China and noted that a fantastic investment strategy would be to have invested in every Internet service that China has blocked. My point being that the services China likes to block are the really important ones that have been built on the Internet.

  He then goes on to say that he believes there’s a strong correlation between innovation and freedom. And I would agree. So until China stops blocking the innovation that is likely going to drive the world forward, I think it’s going to struggle to assume a true leadership position.

  What are your thoughts?

  2014.01.30

• BlackBerry started our forest

  A friend of mine posted this article on my Facebook wall yesterday: “A Snowier Silicon Valley in BlackBerry’s Backyard.”

  It essentially talks about the fact that despite the rapid decline of BlackBerry (it just reported $4.4 billion in losses), the Kitchener-Waterloo region is thriving. Many companies—both local and international, such as Google and Motorola, Square, Desire2Learn, Kik and others—have all hung their shingle in the area. 

  Part of this certainly has to do with the University of Waterloo, but much of it also has to do with the legacy of BlackBerry. In fact, you could argue that BlackBerry (formerly Research in Motion) is what started at all.

  In reading the New York Times article I was reminded of a post that Fred Wilson wrote last year called, “The Darwinian Evolution of Startup Hubs.” It’s a great post. In it he talks about how he looks for the company that gave birth to the hub. In Silicon Valley he argues that it was Fairchild Semiconductor and in New York it was Doubleclick.

  Once started, he likens the hub to a growing forest. The big trees (mature companies) start dropping seeds and new trees then start to grow (more startup companies). This is important, because it kick-starts a non-linear cycle of entrepreneurial growth.

  Here’s how he maps out Silicon Valley:

  “In my mental model of Silicon Valley, the first “tree” was Fairchild Semiconductor (founded in 1957) which begat Intel (founded 1968) which begat Apple (1976) and Oracle (1977), which begat Sun (1982), Silicon Graphics (1981), and Cisco (1984) which begat Siebel (1993) and Netscape (1994), which begat Yahoo! (1995) and eBay (1995), which begat Google (1998) and PayPal (1998), which begat YouTube (2005), Facebook (2004), and LinkedIn (2003) which begat Twitter (2006) and Zynga (2007), which begat Square (2010), Dropbox (2008), and many more.”

  Using this logic, Fred Wilson argues that Silicon Valley is about 10 cycles in and New York is at about 2. So what about Kitchener-Waterloo? Well if you buy into the argument that BlackBerry is what started it all, we’re really only into our first cycle. BlackBerry created a lot of wealth and talent, and now it’s being deployed into local startups. Our forest has begun.

  Part of me worries, though, if Kitchener-Waterloo is the right place for a startup hub over the long term. Sure it has the University of Waterloo, but does young talent want to be there? At about 320,000 people, it’s no San Francisco, New York or Toronto. And we’re already seeing a significant pull towards urban centers.

  But let’s look at it from the perspective of Southern Ontario as a whole. We’re at a critical moment in our evolution. The mother tree has caught a disease and it’s starting to take its toll. It may be able to fight it off, but right now it’s not looking promising. Thankfully, there are many young trees sprouting up to replace it. But we’re going to need to take special care of them, because they’re probably our best shot at creating our own thriving forest.

  2013.12.24

• Capitalism and the future of the world

  Last night I watched an interesting presentation by Fred Wilson (New York VC) where he talks (at LeWeb in Paris) about the big 3 technology trends shaping our world. In his view, they are 1) non-hierarchical networks (think Twitter vs. newspapers); 2) unbundling; and 3) smartphones (the most obvious of the 3). It’s a great talk even if you’re not interested in technology per se, because these trends are impacting virtually every industry, from banking to education.

  This morning Fred wrote a post on his blog called “The Limits of Capitalism.” And I think it’s an excellent follow-up to his talk on the future. I would also classify myself as a capitalist, but I also think that unfettered capitalism will eventually break down. And in the context of the changes outlined in his presentation, I think we need to think long and hard about how we’re going to—not stop them from happening, because they’re inevitable—but best cope with them.

  Because already we’re seeing rising income inequality and a complete “bifurcation of the labor market into high-skill and low-skill jobs.” And that in turn is impacting our cities. In fact, that bifurcation is what largely got Rob Ford elected here in Toronto.

  2013.12.12

• Starting from the bottom in real estate and healthcare

  Earlier this week when I responded to a Globe and Mail article that was arguing condo rents were on the decline in Toronto, I talked about how imperfect and opaque I feel the real estate market is. Today I’d like expand on that.

  The reason I call the real estate industry imperfect is because of 2 main reasons: first, there’s a lot of friction when it comes to buying and selling as a result of high transaction costs (amongst other things); and, second, there are massive information asymmetries between marketplace participants. This could be buyers and sellers, purchasers and developers, clients and real estate agents, and so on.

  But it’s only a matter of time before these issues get resolved. And I think it’ll happen through better access to data and more transparency in the marketplace. The question, however, is: Where is this big data going to come from?

  I was reading Fred Wilson’s post this morning on Large Networks, Big Data, and Healthcare, and I was struck by a parallel. Here’s what stood out for me:

  “The question is who will control the input of the patient data, the aggregated data sets, and the results the data science produces. If the answer is the current healthcare system; the insurance companies, the hospitals, and the doctors, then we will have missed a big opportunity to reshape healthcare. If, on the other hand, the data is entered by patients, controlled by patients, and benefits patients, then we would have something new, different, and disruptive.”

  In both healthcare and real estate, we have large bureaucratic institutions and bodies that control the industry. And in both instances, we’ve seen that they’ve been slow to adapt to the changing times. Therefore, I think the billion dollar opportunity is the same in both: the data is going to have to come from the ground up via patients and real estate consumers. Only then will we have something truly innovative.

  2013.12.01