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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations