People in the US are great believers in the value of entrepreneurs and small business. That faith underlies the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, a new law that will make it easier for small companies to raise money and bypass the regulatory “friction” that firms encounter when they go public. The law assumes that people who cannot find jobs might be able to find investors instead, and that small companies will be able to get the financing they need to grow bigger and hire more people. Angel investors, friends and family will boldly go where banks might fear to tread.
The JOBS Act is an extreme example of Americans’ belief in people’s essential goodness and everyone’s right to self-fulfillment. Every entrepreneur should be entitled to raise funding from willing investors.
It is a uniquely US approach, and capitalistic in the best sense of the word, for it encourages (and democratizes) investment, rather than fueling consumption.
Small (under US$1 billion) companies can raise money directly from small investors in a formalization of the “crowdfunding” approach, whereby a project’s principals post their plans on a Web site and ask for money, essentially opening up the initial public offering market.
The theory underlying the law is that a new set of accredited third-party marketplaces, rather than the overburdened Securities and Exchange Commission (which missed Bernie Madoff’s monster Ponzi scheme), will ensure that entrepreneurs tell the truth and that investors know what they are buying. (Of course, that begs the question of how thoroughly vetted and reliable those third-party marketplaces and their vetting systems will be.)
While this initiative was born in the US, many countries are wondering how to jumpstart their own entrepreneurial sectors and might be tempted to follow the US’ lead. So why do I hope that they resist that temptation?
Unfortunately, the JOBS Act is as likely to be successful as the US government’s earlier attempts to ensure that US families could buy their own homes. Low down payments, deferred interest and other enticements made it attractive for people to buy their own homes (or to speculate with second homes), whether they could afford to or not.
Mortgage brokers were happy to get in on the act. Some were driven by an honest mission to expand property ownership; others were driven by greed. Some knew that the people to whom they were selling houses could not afford it; others simply did not want to know. Some played by the rules; others forged documents. The banks that originated mortgage loans sold their portfolios to investors who did not really understand what they were buying.
In the same way, the JOBS Act will ease life for some deserving people — and most likely attract many more who are less deserving. The new system will attract scam artists and promoters, who will encourage unsuitable companies to seek investment and oversell the companies to individuals who cannot afford to lose the money that they invest.
I wish I had more faith in the system, but the problem is not a lack of good people, good investors or good entrepreneurs. The problem is that, without regulation, bad people take advantage of the good ones. While regulation and restrictions might hamper small business, not all regulation and restrictions are useless.
Yes, there are some wonderful, honest companies that deserve investment and cannot get it, but they are not that common. I see a lot of start-ups. Many are appealing and have good ideas, yet most of them fail. Now the quality of even the honest start-ups is likely to decline as more of them are established and they will spend more of other people’s money before failing.
For example, with more start-ups, it will be even harder for each of them to find management talent and the right employees. Indeed, many people whom an entrepreneur might have hired will probably become chief executives of competing start-ups. Meanwhile, all of them will be competing for a finite number of customers, and those companies that make progress will then have to compete for scarcer scale-up capital.
Many investors in these startups are likely to lose their money. Even under the current system, many angel investors lose money.
The best route to success in angel investing is to invest in, say, 10 or more separate companies, so that you have the chance of at least one big winner. However, again, a broader investor pool is likely to reduce the average number of investments per investor, with inadequate diversification leading to many more losers than winners.
The faith that drives the JOBS Act is the same magical thinking that drives many Internet phenomena: People are good and everyone means well. However, the Internet’s easy accessibility and low entry barriers have led to spam and malware and bad behavior; each new service starts out “clean,” but then ends up requiring its own regulations.
Just ask eBay, Google or Facebook how much they spend on security, fraud detection and the like. They do not want to tell you, which says a lot. As on the Internet, so in real life: Sometimes friction has a purpose.
Esther Dyson, chief executive of EDventure Holdings, is an active investor in a variety of start-ups around the world. Her interests include information technology, healthcare, private aviation and space travel.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US