Archive for February, 2009

Yet another reason not to be near Dubai

Saturday, February 14th, 2009

In an earlier blog post, I pointed out that Dubai was a place that simply was too dangerous to think about visiting:

British resident Cat Le-Huy was arrested in Dubai for carrying Melatonin jet-lag tablets, which are sold over the counter in the US and Dubai.

Now apparently the expat residents are realizing that Dubai is also too dangerous a place to live:

Sofia, a 34-year-old Frenchwoman, moved here a year ago to take a job in advertising, so confident about Dubai’s fast-growing economy that she bought an apartment for almost $300,000 with a 15-year mortgage.

Now, like many of the foreign workers who make up 90 percent of the population here, she has been laid off and faces the prospect of being forced to leave this Persian Gulf city — or worse.

“I’m really scared of what could happen, because I bought property here,” said Sofia, who asked that her last name be withheld because she is still hunting for a new job. “If I can’t pay it off, I was told I could end up in debtors’ prison.”

Wow. Debtors prison. What a “cool” concept from the 18th century.

With Dubai’s economy in free fall, newspapers have reported that more than 3,000 cars sit abandoned in the parking lot at the Dubai Airport, left by fleeing, debt-ridden foreigners (who could in fact be imprisoned if they failed to pay their bills). Some are said to have maxed-out credit cards inside and notes of apology taped to the windshield.

Why apologize? The person is escaping and running for their very lives.

Dubai, unlike Abu Dhabi or nearby Qatar and Saudi Arabia, does not have its own oil, and had built its reputation on real estate, finance and tourism. Now, many expatriates here talk about Dubai as though it were a con game all along. Lurid rumors spread quickly: the Palm Jumeira, an artificial island that is one of this city’s trademark developments, is said to be sinking, and when you turn the faucets in the hotels built atop it, only cockroaches come out.


View Larger Map

FAS157: VCs whining about what they have to do anyhow

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

So over at Techdirt, Mike Masnick gets all whiny about having to follow government regulations:

And, now, FAS 157 has come into play — a new rule impacting many venture capitalists, forcing them to figure out what the “fair market value” of their investments are, and provide that number to their investors. The problem is that these things are impossible to accurately value. Not difficult, but impossible. You’re asking people to value a totally illiquid asset as if it were liquid.

I am sorry but this smells like bullsh*t. Mike claims it is impossible to value a totally illiquid asset.

For arguments sake, lets think of some totally illiquid assets that get valued all the time in the courts:

  • A person’s sight (lost in an industrial accident)
  • Cancer caused by exposure to a TCE leaching into the water supply
  • A person’s life

The fact is that we figure out how to assign a value to “illiquid” assets all the time.

Mike links to Fred Wilson’s blog post which Mike offers up as “proof” that VCs are complaining about FAS157. However, Fred gives a fairly clear explanation of how his firm tries to value each company, including areas where there is a little bit of black magic. Fred ends his post:

There’s a silver lining in all of this, including the IRS 409a pronouncement of a few years ago that has created a whole industry of private company valuation firms and, if anything, even lower stock option grant prices, and that is that we are starting to collect a huge data set of private company valuations over time.

This, combined with the efforts of a few brave souls to create secondary markets for private company stock is going to lead to more data, more transparency, and more liquidity without having to register and do an IPO or sell your company.

Now I may be insane but Fred doesn’t sound like someone who cannot arrive at any valuation.

Now lets shoot some more holes in Mike’s “theory”. He says that he can possibly value any portfolio companies at any time. This means that, if Mike was to be a member of 5-partner VC firm, his firm could NOT:

  • pick the weakest companies that get cut-off (if Mike cannot value a company at all then he can’t value it against another company either)
  • decide which partner is doing better and which partner is picking poorly (can’t value, means can’t value partner performance either)
  • explain to a limited partner how well the fund is doing (“We can’t value our portfolio companies….” “WTF???” )
  • make a decision if the next round should be an up or downround
  • figure out if they got a great deal or if the founders got a great deal

Sorry…. BULLSHIT