Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2009

As Facebook secured some investments earlier this year, and invested it towards international growth, the latest news spark renewed IPO rumors.

Of course, no one knows, but the hiring of a CFO from a larger corporation is nothing you do unless you have greater plans. First and foremost, it costs you a bunch of money, secondly, the demands this person has on you by his experience will force the structure needed upon you.

The biggest challenge remains though – to create profitability.

Here is a quoted article from BusinessWeek.

“In April, when Facebook announced the departure of Chief Financial Officer Gideon Yu, the social network said it would look for a replacement “with public company experience.” Facebook found what it was seeking in David Ebersman, a 15-year veteran of biotech pioneer Genentech (DNA).

“David [Ebersman] worked at one of the most innovative and respected [companies] in the world, so he brings a lot to the table when it comes to our efforts to build a lasting, important company,” Facebook spokesman Larry Yu says of the appointment, announced on June 29.

Ebersman’s appointment keeps alive speculation over whether and how soon the world’s biggest social network is headed for an initial public share sale. “We have no plans to go public,” says spokesman Larry Yu. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was quoted in May saying an IPO remains “a few years out.”

Ebersman, 38, served as Genentech’s CFO for the four years leading up to its $46.8 billion sale to drug giant Roche Holding (ROG) in May. In Facebook’s press release, CEO Mark Zuckerberg noted that under Ebersman, Genentech’s revenue tripled. Zuckerberg envisions high growth for his company as well, saying sales will rise 70% this year. (eMarketer has projected that Facebook’s revenue will grow 20% this year, to $300 million.)”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is an article I found at cleantech.

“San Francisco, Calif.-based CMEA Capital is on the hunt for the best and brightest cleantech investments. But if the investors can’t find what they are looking for, founder and Managing Director Tom Baruch told the Cleantech Group they’ll create their own company.

The venture capital firm usually invests anywhere from $10 million to $15 million per company, over the life of its involvement with the company, he said. And these days, renewable fuels and chemicals from cellulosic precursors as well as algae are catching the attention of CMEA investors. Baruch said they are working on a stealth project in collaboration with a university in San Diego to genetically modify algae to produce chemicals.

“We’re working to see if we can build our own company,” he said. “We’re shopping for the right technologies and supporting some small research projects.”

CMEA has also invested about $15 million to date in Codexis, which makes producing biofuels, pharmaceuticals and industrial products faster through its next-generation biocatalytic chemical manufacturing processes. CMEA was involved in spinning Codexis out of Redwood City, Calif.-based biotech company Maxygen (Nasdaq:MAXY).

Codexis, which filed its S-1 in 2008 (see Codexis files for $100M IPO) and then pulled it due to market conditions (see Codexis withdraws IPO), has attracted significant private equity investment with IPO plans on the horizon again come 2010.

In March, global energy giant Royal Dutch Shell NYSE:(RDS.A) and Codexis expanded an agreement to develop better biocatalysts, with Shell increasing its equity stake in Codexis. The companies first announced the partnership in 2006 to investigate other biofuels, researching new enzymes to convert biomass directly into components similar to gasoline and diesel, with Shell taking a stake in the company in 2007 (see Shell partners with Codexis for next generation biofuel research and Shell, Codexis in biofuels agreement).

Baruch said he expects Codexis to turn a profit by the end of this year.

“We want to be involved in companies that are truly transformative—that change the way people do things and think about things, that have cost and performance characteristics that are a leap apart from what’s currently available,” he said.  “And frankly, if it’s not transformative I don’t want to do it.”

To read the full article, click here.

Read Full Post »

Here come an article written by Mark Scott at BusinessWeek.

“Last week, I was in Geneva attending a cleantech summit that brought together Europe’s top venture capitalists and entrepreneurs looking for investment. One theme kept emerging: VCs are moving their money away from energy generation projects, such as wind-farm and solar-parks. The reason? Funding those types of businesses is just too expensive for investors already struggling from the global downturn.

That message was reinforced on June 23 when consultants New Energy Finance released preliminary results about cleantech investment. Not surprising, they also found VCs were steering clear of energy generation projects. In the first half of 2009, venture capital and private equity firms forked out $3 billion globally for clean energy companies — a 56% drop compared to the same period last year.”

To read the full story, click here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a commentary from Warren Buffet on the economic crisis.  It is a reworked piece from “The Swamp”, Chicago Tribune´s Washington blog, written by Mark Silva.

“We have not come off the bottom yet,” Warren Buffett says.

“Buffett, the multibillionaire oracle from Omaha and informal adviser to President Barack Obama, says the actions that the federal government is taking today raise the “probability” of “very significant inflation down the road,” but they are necessary and “appropriate.”

“What we’re doing raises the probability significantly of very significant inflation down the road –not this year or next year or the year after that.. But we’ve taken actions and they were appropriate actions,” Buffett said in an interview with FOX Business Network’s Liz Claman.

“It will have consequences, and nobody knows exactly what they will be and how effective we will be at draining a system we’ve been flooding, but the probability of significant inflation has gone up,” Buffett said. Asked about the possibility that the U.S. is issuing too much debt to pay for all the bailouts and economic stimulus underway, he said: “Well, it’s doing what it has to do. And it was appropriate.”

With unemployment already clocked at 9.4 percent last month and expected to surpass 10 percent in the months ahead, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway – its legendary stock down to the $86,000-per-share range since the recession took hold – said of the jobless rate: “It’s going higher — business has not bounced back. We have not come off the bottom yet…

“It will work out in the end,” Buffett said. “Since 1776. it’s been a mistake to bet against America. America solves its problems. How soon, nobody knows. But we have not come off the bottom yet. And it will work out in the end.”

Read and see the full interview here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a excellent analysis from Willem Buiter´s blog at FT.com.

“The too big to fail problem has been central to the degeneration and corruption of the financial system in the north Atlantic region over the past two decades. The ‘too large to fail’ category is sometimes extended to become the ‘too big to fail’, ‘too interconnected to fail’, ‘too complex to fail’ and ‘too international’ to fail problem, but the real issue is size.  The real issue is size.  Even if a financial business is highly interconnected, that is, if its total exposure to the rest of the world and the exposure of the rest of the world to the financial entity are complex and far-reaching, it can still be allowed to fail if the total amounts involved are small.  A complex but small business is no threat to systemic stability; neither is a highly international but small business.  Size is the core of the problem; the other dimensions (interconnectedness, complexity and international linkages) only matter (and indeed worsen the instability problem) if the institution in question is big.  So how do we prevent banks and other financial businesses from becoming too large to fail?”

Mr Buiter suggests a series of meassures in his article, to read the analogy, please see link below.

  • Become too big to save
  • Restore narrow banking or public utility banking
  • Create mono-product central counterparties and providers of custodial services, central wholesale and securities payment, clearing and settlement platforms
  • Keep a lid on the size of investment banks
  • Tax bank size
  • Use competition policy
  • Restrict limited liability to prevent excessive risk taking and reduce the size of banks
  • Create effective special resolution mechanisms for all systemically important financial institutions

He concludes:

“In banking and most highly leveraged finance, size is a social bad.  Fortunately, there is quite a list of effective instruments for cutting leveraged finance down to size.

  • Legally and institutionally, unbundle narrow banking and investment banking (Glass Steagall-on-steroids).
  • Legally and institutionally prevent all banks (narrow banks and investment banks) from engaging in activities that present manifest potential conflicts of interest. This means no more universal banks and similar financial supermarkets.
  • Limit the size of all banks by making regulatory capital ratios an increasing function of bank size.
  • Enforce competition policy aggressively in the banking sector, by breaking up banks if necessary.
  • Require any remaining systemically important banks to produce a detailed annual bankruptcy contingency plan.
  • Only permit limited liability for narrow banks/public utility banks.
  • Create a highly efficient special resolution regime for all systemically important financial institutions. This SRR will permit an omnipotent Conservator/Administrator to financially restructure the failing institutions (by writing down the claims of the unsecured creditors or mandatorily converting them into equity), without interfering materially with new lending, investment and funding operations.

The Geithner plan for restructuring US regulation is silent on the too big to fail problem.  That alone is sufficient to ensure that it will fail to result in a more stable and safer US banking and financial system.

In the UK, the otherwise enlightened head of the FSA, Adair Turner, does not see a problem with banks of huge size and with a staggering range of unrelated or conflicted activities.  Of all the parties that matter, only the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, is clear that ‘too big to fail’ is at the heart of the financial crisis we are trying to exit and will be at the heart of the next financial crisis that we are preparing so assiduously.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling takes the cake in the bigger is better stakes.  He appointed “Win” Bischoff, the former chairman of Citigroup (appointed interim CEO for Citigroup in December 2007 after Chuck Prince bit the dust), to co-chair the writing of a report on UK international financial services – the future, published on May 7, 2009.  That’s rather like asking the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to write a report on who won the Iranian presidential election.  It really is the most ridiculous appointment since Caligula appointed his favourite horse a consul.  You will not be surprised to hear that the report does not consider the size of UK banks to be excessive.

International cooperation is necessary if we are to solve the too big to fail problem.  I am not holding my breath.”

To read the full article, click here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »