Singapore start-ups struggle to woo investors, failure to launch

Singapore's decade-long push to become a hotbed for entrepreneurs is stuck at stage one.

The city-state of 5.3 million people ranks No. 1 in the world in ease of doing business and fourth in starting one, according to a World Bank study. It offers low taxes, easy-to-obtain seed money to start a business, and a well-educated, English-speaking workforce in the gateway to Asia.

It just takes one day and S$315 ($260) to register a business in Singapore. Yet, the country has struggled to attract international investment money for its own start-ups.

Venture capital firms are put off by the small size of the market, lack of big ideas that can be a global success and an uncertain exit strategy. Only 50 out of 301 venture capital firms based in Singapore are interested in local investment, according to the Asian Venture Capital Journal Research.

Of the 70 high tech start-ups the government has invested in over the past two years, just 10 received follow-on private funding from investors locally and abroad, according to the National Research Foundation, the government arm responsible for research and development.

"There is a real shortage of venture capital firms investingin Series A in Singapore," said Leslie Loh, an entrepreneur-turned-investor, referring to the first round of funds raised by start-ups after seed capital.

"VCs are looking at countries like India and China where there is a larger domestic market."

Only 2 percent (about $15 million) of the total venture capital investment in Asia is aimed at Singapore, according to Asian Venture Capital Journal Research's data for 2012. Japan,

China and India topped the list of big VC investments in Asia.

"In the early stage there is a big push (by the government). But if you look at the whole ecosystem for helping companies grow, there is a gap in the growth stage," said Wong Poh Kam, a professor at National University of Singapore's business school.

"For a Singapore company to be able to achieve global success, it needs to have sufficient follow-on venture capital funding."

CHICKEN-AND-EGG PROBLEM

Pampered by government funds at the early stage, when start-ups can tap up to S$500,000 in grants, companies are finding it hard when they go looking for millions of dollars from venture capital firms for Series A funds.

Of the 374 venture capital investments in Asia in 2012, Singapore accounted for just 24, according to AVCJ Research.

"If there are no success stories, VCs do not think there is a compelling reason to be here," said Wong.

But that success depends on big money from venture capital firms, leaving start-ups stuck in a vicious cycle.

Andrew Roth, co-founder of Perx, which makes a digital loyalty card application, said one of the first questions he heard from investors when he went looking for funding was, "What is your net operating income?"

Roth says he would not have been asked that question if he was in Silicon Valley, where investors care more about the functioning of the product and its ability to gain scale.

"The mindset has to change," said Roth, who is currently in the process of raising a second round of funds from individual investors and funds. "It is a younger ecosystem so investors are so much more risk averse."

THE 'A' CRUNCH

Singapore start-ups are also forced to think globally right from day one as a product aimed at a small domestic audience is not going to bring them a lot of success.

Henn Tan, head of Trek 2000 International Ltd, the company that introduced the ThumbDrive USB flash drive in 2000 and ranks among the few globally known success stories of Singapore, said it is difficult for Singapore to produce entrepreneurs.

"Because fellow Singaporeans are being subjected to regimented life from early years...there are too many rules and regulations for the young generation to think out of the box without being reprimanded," Tan said.

The problem of raising funds beyond the government-created cocoon raises the question of whether its involvement in the start-up scene is actually a good thing.

Some think the government initiatives allow undeserving start-ups to get easy money, while others say the lack of private funds just proves that the government has to be active in providing a catalyst to start-ups and entrepreneurs.

The government says it needs to support start-ups at the early stage because that's where the most risk exists.

"When the landscape is one which sees the vibrancy that you see in California and where multitudes of VCs have taken root and (are) able to manage a portfolio from early stage to growth stage to pre-IPO, then we can take a step back," said Low Teck Seng, CEO of the National Research Foundation.

But he also warned against too much government involvement. "If the government funds what the industry thinks is not worth funding, then we will not be doing justice to public funds."

IDEAL ENVIRONMENT

Other than state-run or state-backed companies such as Singapore Airlines Ltd and Keppel Corp Ltd, the world's largest oil rig builder, there are only a few big home-grown companies from Singapore.

There was Creative Technologies Ltd, whose PC audio cards, speakers and MP3 players were a hit in the early 2000s, but it fell out of favour with increasing competition. The company has posted 21 straight quarters of losses and voluntarily delisted itself from the Nasdaq in 2007.

For Perx's Roth, who moved from New Jersey to Singapore to start his company, the attraction is the presence of global firms that set up an Asian base here, providing a steady stream of potential customers.

The fact that Singapore is home to high-flying business executives also helps. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin invested in Perx early on. He sits on Perx's board, and meets with Roth and his team once a month, Roth said.

"It's hard for Singapore to claim to be an entrepreneur hub for (the) whole of Asia," said NUS's Wong. "A more realistic target would be for Southeast Asia." ($1 = 1.2182 Singapore dollars)

(Editing by Emily Kaiser) (Reuters)

Regulate property management! Forum on Strata Management in Penang

IT is understandable for the Strata Management Act to attract much public interest. There are (or will soon be) more people living in high-rise strata properties than in landed properties, given the rapid urbanisation and rising land prices in Malaysia.

The issue of the Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents (BVAEA) seeking to regulate property management is controversial. Since the BVAEA is a body under the Finance Ministry, isn’t it odd that the Finance Ministry rather than the Housing Ministry is trying to regulate property management?

Most people have a pretty good idea about the job of a property manager and would conclude that it is a generalist’s job.

There should not be too many restrictions attached to a generalist’s job, such as that of a sales manager or a supermarket manager.

The opinion of HBA honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong on the role of a property manager is a bit overstated.

Property managers are at all times employees of MCs and JMBs and never the other way round.

Lives and property worth millions of ringgit are the prime responsibilities of employers and not the employees.

It is an exaggeration to say that lives and property worth millions are being entrusted to property managers to care, control and manage.

However, it may be a good idea to regulate the property manager’s job, but it would be more appropriate if it came under a board in the Housing Ministry with input from engineers and architects.

It would be less appropriate to come under a board in the Finance Ministry, as property management has more to do with building than finance.

By A CONCERNED CITIZEN Kuala Lumpur

Forum on strata management

A SEMINAR on the Strata Management Bill 2012 as well as the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2012 will be held at Auditorium C and F, Level 5, Komtar, from 10am to 4pm on Jan 13.

Komtar assemblyman Ng Wei Aik said many people were unaware of the new bill’s contents, including how to handle strata management disputes.

“The bill provides better protection for property owners. It is important that they know their rights,” he said at a press conference.

He said lawyer Lee Khai would talk on the application of the Strata Management Bill while licensed land surveyor Chuang Kuang Han would talk on Strata Titles Application and Problematic Cases.

Registration fee is RM30 per person which includes buffet lunch and lecture notes.

The public, including management corporations, joint management bodies and residents associations are invited to attend.

For more details, contact Ng’s service centre at 04-2270215/017-4108914/012-4290163, fax 04-2278215 or e-mail dapkomtar308@gmail.com before Jan 8.

Related posts:

New beginning in Malaysian strata property management?

With more and more people living in stratified buildings, the new Strata Management Act is timely in helping to reduce animosity among res...

Good property management, maintenance add value 25 Nov 2012
Is property building management a professional? 08 Nov 2012
Managing strata properties in Malaysia Sep 11, 2012
World's Simplest Management Secret 08 Nov 2012      

An American-Made Business Model Has Less Success Overseas

For years, the titans of finance have held out the promise that they could export their business model overseas and mint billions in the process. Yet, there are increasing signs that global deal-making was always a myth.

If you’ve been anywhere near a Wall Street conference in the last five years, you know the drill. Deal makers bemoan the United States as a mature and overregulated economy. They talk about heading abroad, as emerging market economies leave us far behind. To listen to them, one might think the rest of the world was a paradise out of “Atlas Shrugged,” where capital flows and where private equity, investment banks and other investors can freely seek opportunities.

So what country is No. 1 in initial public offerings so far this year? Yes, it is the United States, according to Renaissance Capital, with 75 I.P.O.’s raising $39 billion in total. Compare this activity with China, where 41 I.P.O.’s raised just $8.1 billion.

M&AS

And in mergers and acquisitions? Again, it is the United States, with 53 percent of the worldwide deal volume, up from 51 percent from last year, according to Dealogic. For investment banks, this means that the United States has a 46 percent share of the $63 billion in worldwide investment banking revenue, up from 34.6 percent in 2009.

With the slowdown in once-hot emerging markets, the tide is going out, baring all of the problems and issues associated with global deal-making.

China is a prime example. Huge amounts of foreign and state investment produced an economic miracle. And in that time, wealth was there to be had.

But let’s be clear about where that wealth came from. In the United States, deal makers make money primarily by buying underperforming assets, adding some financial wizardry and riding any improvements in the stock market. Sometimes, they get lucky by making a quick profit, but often private equity works to squeeze out inefficiencies and make operating improvements in companies and then takes them public a few years later.

China's situation

In China, what increasingly appears to have been a stock market and asset bubble spurred by hundreds of billions in direct investment has created some spectacular early profits for deal makers. The private equity firm Carlyle Group, for example, has made an estimated $4.4 billion on an investment in China Pacific Insurance, which it took public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

But now, with the Chinese I.P.O. market at a virtual standstill and the Shanghai market down more than 30 percent from its high last year, that avenue to riches is over. People are starting to say that investment in China resembles a “No Exit” sign.

Deal makers are left with a back-to-basics approach that looks to make money from companies through economic growth or improving their performance. Yet most of these investments are made with state actors and minority positions, meaning that there may be little opportunity to actually do anything more than sit and wait and hope. And you know what they say about hope as a strategy.

It appears that deal makers are starting to realize the problem. Foreign direct investment in China was down 3.67 percent from last year to $9.6 billion, and it is likely to remain on a downward trend.

And China has been among the friendliest places for deal makers. Other emerging markets have been less accommodating. Take India, which has been criticized for excessive regulation, high taxes and ownership prohibitions. David Bonderman, the head of the private equity giant TPG Capital, recently said that “we stay away from places that have impossible governments and impossible tax regimes, which means sayonara to India.”

Foreign issues

The comment about India highlights another problem with foreign deal-making: it’s foreign. Sometimes, the political winds change and local governments that initially welcomed investment change their minds.

South Korea, for example, invited foreign capital to invest in its battered financial sector after the Asian currency crisis. But when Lone Star Investments was about to reap billions in profits on an investment in Korea Exchange Bank, a legal battle almost a decade long erupted as Korean government officials accused the fund of vulture investing.

And the political problems are sometimes not directed at foreign investors. South Africa, for example, is undergoing the kind of political turmoil that can stop all foreign investment in its tracks over treatment of its workers and continuing income inequality. Things are not much better in the more mature economies.

Economic doldrums

Europe is in the economic doldrums, and its governments are increasingly protectionist of both jobs and industry. France, for example, recently threatened to nationalize a factory owned by ArcelorMittal, which sought to shut down two furnaces.

The national minister said the company was “not welcome.” It’s hard to see a deal maker profiting from buying an inefficient enterprise that it can’t clean up without risking national censure.

Buying at a low is the lifeblood of any investment strategy — but this assumes that there will be an uptick, and on the Continent, that is uncertain given the state of Greece and the other indebted economies in Southern Europe.

This is all a far cry from the oratory vision-making at conferences. Now that the global gold rush has ended, the belief that the American way of doing deals is portable is being upended.

Fragmented world

We are left with a fragmented world where capital moves not so freely, the problems of politics and regulation are more prominent and investing in emerging markets becomes what it always has been: the province of more specialized investors who are in tune with the political and regulatory requirements. Regardless, the easy riches that many thought these countries would bring are now far out of sight.

And the winner in all of this is likely to be the much-maligned United States, where the economic conditions and regulatory environment first gave birth to these deal makers.

This is not to say that there will still not be global deal-making or that American multinationals will not continue to expand abroad. Of course, there will still be profits in deals overseas. But the vision that deal-making will instantly and seamlessly go global is increasingly exposed as one that was more a fairy tale than reality.- IHT/NYT

---

Steven M. Davidoff, a professor at the Michael E. Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, is the author of “Gods at War: Shotgun Takeovers, Government by Deal and the Private Equity Implosion.” E-mail: dealprof@nytimes.com | Twitter: @StevenDavidoff