Rightways to Success

Monday, 14 January 2019

Startup opportunities abound

Band together: Entrepreneurs are urged to build strong communities to have a bigger voice that will enable them to affect policy that is beneficial to the industry.

Local startup sector gaining ground with stronger investor interest

THE past few years have seen an increase of entrepreneurs in the local tech startup sector. With better access to funding, there is ample opportunity for new business ideas to take off.

But while the number of startups in Malaysia has increased, industry observers say we are merely scratching the surface of where the industry could be.

According to Yusuf Jaffar, programme manager of Global Accelerator Programme from Malaysian Global Innovation & Creativity Centre (MaGIC), there is an estimate of 3,000 startups in Malaysia. Compared to the over 1 million registered enterprises here, startups make up only 0.25% of total companies registered.

In contrast, Singapore has 42,000 startups, making up some 8.88% of companies in the island state.

In the region, South Korea has an estimated 30,000 startups, while Indonesia and India has over 4,700 and 7,700 respectively.

Although the numbers in Indonesia and India look low, Yusuf points out that they have a vibrant startup ecosystem.

“India has 1,200 new startups every year, and this does not include the ones that are failing. These are the ones that are surviving or thriving. This shows vibrancy of ecosystem.

Getting there: Hall says Malaysia’s startup ecosystem is rapidly maturing.

“For Malaysia’s ecosystem to grow, we need to rapidly increase our number of startups. We need more entrepreneurs here and we need more ideas,” he says.

He names four components that are needed for the industry to grow – more startups, capital, markets and talent.

In terms of capital, Yusuf notes that venture capital (VC) penetration in Malaysia is relatively high with 110 VC firms. Statistically, he says, there are a lot of funds available in Malaysia with US$1.75bil in VC funding for the local ecosystem, of which, only 50% has been spent to-date.

However, most of these funds go into funding Series A (US$1mil-US$3mil) and B (US$3mil-US$10mil) rounds, whereby the startups have grown sizably.

According to statistics, only 0.89% of VC capital went into early-stage investment, which amounted to about eight investments last year. In Singapore, 67% of VC funding goes to the early stage.

It is crucial to have adequate funding for early stage investment to ensure that entrepreneurs can tap these funds to grow their ideas.

“We are investing late,” says Yusuf.

In Malaysia, he estimates that the success rate for startups is 20%.

He adds that 90% of the current 242 unicorns – startup company valued at over US$1bil – in the world received VC funding from the get-go, underscoring the importance of VCs in making high-growth companies.

Additionally, the frequency of investments in the local market is low. In 2017, there were only 77 investments made by VCs, or only 2.57% of startups received VC investment. Considering that there are 110 VC firms here, it is small wonder that entrepreneurs feel that there is a lack of funding available in the local market.

Stacking up regionally

Malaysia has often been cited as a country with great potential. We have a fairly well-educated population, infrastructure and a strong economy.

However, the other countries in the region have somehow garnered more interest from investors. Singapore and Indonesia, in particular, have been receiving sizeable investments from VCs. The Indochina region has also been getting a lot of attention in recent times.

And not many from the industry will forget that Malaysia-founded Grab eventually moved to Singapore given the more vibrant ecosystem across the straits.

But Justin Hall, partner at Singapore-based Golden Gate Ventures, says that Malaysia’s startup ecosystem is rapidly maturing.

“As we’re starting to see in other regional countries, Malaysian entrepreneurs are actively seeking to build out platforms and products that appeal to the entire South-East Asia, and not simply the domestic Malaysian market.

“Regional funds are actively looking for and investing in Malaysian-born startups, and I see this trend accelerating as investors look out from Indonesia and Singapore,” says Hall.

Last November, Golden Gate launched its Malaysian office in Kuala Lumpur to solidify its presence here. The firm had already utilised a quarter of its Fund II to invest in early-stage tech companies that are based or operating in Malaysia. It is planning to invest a further RM75mil in Malaysia-based startups.

Smart capital: Ganesh notes that VCs can now pick and choose their investments because there are more startups around. — Bernama

He notes that Malaysia also has a large digital consumer market.

“It bears some striking similarities to other South-East Asian countries in terms of consumptive behaviour such as regulatory bottlenecks in certain industries, and regulatory, infrastructure, and logistical constraints. This means that products and services that resonate with Malaysian consumers and businesses might be easier to localise into other regional markets than, say, companies that specifically appeal to Singaporeans,” he adds.

Hall opines that Malaysian companies are undervalued compared to Indonesia and Singapore, largely due to the sheer amount of capital being invested in the later markets. There were previously also some gaps in founder experience and capability between the markets, but that gap is rapidly closing.

According to Hall, logistics and supply-chain focused startups will come into focus in 2019 as the e-commerce boom starts sizing up in the region.

“We are really only scratching the surface of scalable, efficient, inter-country logistics and supply-chain platforms. We hope to continue finding and investing in the best, most talented entrepreneurs in South-East Asia this year,” he says.

However, Commerce DotAsia Ventures Sdn Bhd executive chairman Ganesh Kumar Bangah notes that the startup frenzy in the region seen a few years ago has cooled off.

“Valuations were very high three to four years ago. I think it has cooled off. There are still some startups who ask for crazy valuations, but they don’t get funded. VCs can now pick and choose because there are so many startups. They don’t compete with each other as much as before.

“It is not like three or four years ago, where a startup can say, ‘if you don’t give me this value, the next guy who comes in will offer me that’. Today, there’s realism in the game.

“There is still a lot of money in the region for the right companies. People are less willing to overpay for them,” he says.

Building the ecosystem

Governments play an important role in developing the startup ecosystem and in creating new markets for the ecosystem.

Yusuf says favourable policy can mobilise funds and help grow the industry.

He cites the example of Singapore, which has allocated S$5bil in matching grants for startups, effectively pouring in S$10bil for the sector. In the US, some US$84bil is invested into VCs annually, with the bulk of these funds coming from pension funds.

Obviously, the funding ecosystem in Malaysia has a long way to go. But developments in the local market such as equity crowdfunding and Leap Market have opened up more funding avenues for startups looking to tap new money. Additionally, more people have shown interest in becoming angel investors, which would help fill the gap in the early-stage financing.

“It is not that there is not enough money in the ecosystem. The case is, there’s not enough intelligent capital at the early stage here. Intelligent money means that these investors have the knowledge to value the startups, and have the ability to give them the add-ons to help them grow.

“We don’t lack capital, we lack intelligent capital at the early stage. We’ve got a lot of people with money and a lot of them want to invest in technology but don’t know how,” notes Ganesh.

Yusuf concurs. The Malaysian ecosystem lacks specialist talents who can run funds. Most of the local VCs are managed by generalists who may not be able to discern startup-specific issues and challenges.

Paving the way: Governments can play an effective role in creating new markets for the ecosystem.

Thus, there is a need to attract more foreign funding and talent to close the gap in the local market.

“Governments also play a big role in market creation. The government needs to put in real money into these specific markets.

“A good example is the “buy social” campaign in the UK where all government procurement contracts have to go to social enterprises. That has led to the UK becoming the epicentre of social enterprises in the world, because the government made that effort and made that pledge.

“So it’s not just about identifying a market, but creating real value in the market. There’s no way an entrepreneur can grow unless the market is created,” says Yusuf.

He notes that 5% of the UK’s GDP now comes from social enterprises.

Yusuf also urges entrepreneurs themselves to be part of the effort in building the local startup ecosystem by creating communities that will enable them to work outside their silos. By working within communities, entrepreneurs will be able to share ideas and collaborate to form better solutions and business models.

“We need to have clusters, where you can get matching of skillset and vision. And these clusters should be connected to other clusters to see how you can build the ecosystem and move the ecosystem forward.

“So build the community. And the importance of building a bigger community is so that you can affect policy in a way that will benefit the industry,” he says.

By joy lee Starbiz

Related

New allegations on 1MDB scandal: More clarity still neede

Story behind the story: Wright and his ‘Billion Dollar Whale’ co-author Hope have published new allegations on 1MDB but the anonymity of their sources could compromise their credibility.

Nothing should be assumed too easily about even an established scandal like 1MDB, certainly not guilt or culpability, if sound investigations and public confidence are not to be prejudiced.

JUST when everyone seemed inured to shocking details about 1MDB, Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporters appeared to have come up with more.

Investigative reporters Tom Wright and Bradley Hope, who covered 1MDB issues before, made additional claims last Monday that would be shocking if proven true.

They say that upon the initiative of Malaysian authorities, China offered to bail out 1MDB’s debts or losses in exchange for Malaysia’s support for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects.

These projects were further said to have come at inflated costs, were acknowledged as unprofitable, and lacked transparency in their implications.

Wright and Hope say their information came from the minutes of “secret meetings” between Malaysian and Chinese officials and the personal testimony of some Malaysian officials past and present.

The authors could have been more transparent about their sources and on the content of their revelations, but apparently not.

Countries do sometimes engage in such intrigue, but nonetheless it is always easier to allege than to verify. Serious allegations such as these require equally serious substantiation.

The gist of the claims had been troubling thoughtful Malaysians, yet few expected it to take such form. Not without reason, doubts linger about the details and accuracy of these claims among all parties.

Even when current government officials could have made political capital by weighing in, making the former government’s alleged actions seem nastier, they refrained from it.

Formal meetings between government officials of two countries are routinely confidential and therefore “secret”, so there is nothing particularly sinister about their unreported nature.

There is also doubt about the minutes of meetings containing compromising information. Some meetings were said to be in China where Malaysian officials visited, yet the hosts freely permitted the visitors to go home with the recorded minutes of potentially explosive discussions.

The WSJ’s story has present and former Malaysian officials informing it about a supposedly secretive pact between Malaysia and China, yet senior Malaysian officials both past and present know nothing about it. Both sets of Malaysian officials are genuinely concerned and seriously want to know. Yet it is said that some Malaysian officials already knew, had known for more than half a year since last May, and who preferred to tell all to the WSJ only now rather than to their colleagues or the media earlier.

The media at the time also did not know, neither Malaysiakini, Sarawak Report, nor any other that was actively covering the issues, despite a freer news environment after last May’s election that encouraged whistleblowing and exposés.

For the kinds of sources said to have been used for the WSJ story – minutes of several meetings, and the testimonies of officials – the substantiation has been rather lean.

In its January 7 report of just 1,703 words, only two dates (June 28 and September 22, 2016) have been mentioned for the meetings. Two Chinese officials had been named at the meetings but not any Malaysian.

Xiao Yaqing, Chairman of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, is quoted as stressing the importance of one particular meeting but nothing else.

Sun Lijun, “head of China’s domestic security force,” is cited as mentioning his agency’s capacity in conducting surveillance on parties inimical to Malaysia’s previous government, but nothing about what Malaysia is supposed to do in return.

Each of the two named persons had only part of a story to tell, with nothing to substantiate the larger claims made by the WSJ’s reporters. There is nothing definitive like a “smoking gun” to back those claims.

No Malaysian official at any of the meetings has been named or quoted, not even in reported speech. For many observers that seems odd, particularly where deals were supposedly agreed between two sides.

Malaysia is also supposed to have agreed to BRI projects only when China offered to bail out 1MDB. That presumption seems somewhat stilted.

Later in the story, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak is said in reported speech to have voiced support for “China’s position in the South China Sea during a regional summit in Laos.”

Najib’s Government may have been quiet on China’s sweeping maritime territorial claims, it was certainly less vocal than Vietnam or the Philippines on the dispute, but nowhere can it be said that it supported China’s position in the South China Sea.

And an Asean summit would have been the last place such a thing could have happened, even if it ever did. The WSJ story also claims that China had offered Malaysia its influence in stopping US investigations into 1MDB and Malaysian leaders at the time.

Given the highly competitive China-US relationship, particularly in third countries, what possible “influence” could China really have on the US in stopping investigations into allegedly shady deals involving China?

For many observers, the US would have had every incentive to proceed with such investigations, the more so when China appeared to be apprehensive about them.

It would be utterly foolish for any Chinese official to think there is such influence, and totally naïve for any Malaysian official to believe it. The same seems to apply to readers of the WSJ story.

The story behind the story is that the documents such as the minutes of meetings had been discovered in official files left behind by the previous Government after it had vacated official premises following its election defeat.

Again, many would doubt that the ousted officials had taken all possibly incriminating material with them as they left, except for these highly revealing documents.

The new Pakatan Harapan leaders had also been slow in taking office, first with the delayed swearing-in ceremony of the new Prime Minister and then in the phased nature of ministerial appointments.

Yet despite these delays, it is said that the departing Barisan Nasional leaders still did not retrieve the documents that could be used against them.

The WSJ sources rest on the what (documented minutes) and even more on the who (Malaysian officials who provided the minutes, and those who testified to it).

All of these officials are persons unknown or unnamed. Anonymity sometimes accords legitimate protection, but not now when it only compromises their credibility.

When serious allegations are levelled against one party or another, in this case against both Chinese and former Malaysian officials, some vested political interests of someone somewhere could be served.

It has also been implied that other “secret talks” had led to Malaysia’s readiness for Chinese naval vessels to dock in Malaysian ports.

But to a non-aligned country, the docking of vessels from friendly nations for supplies and refuelling should not be an issue – certainly not an issue requiring the seal of approval from secret negotiations.

Sarawak Report, which initially gave 1MDB information to several newspapers including WSJ, has since complained about some of its methods.

The WSJ has done very good work on 1MDB investigations and similar stories before, and it will most certainly do so again.

Najib and Jho Low have meanwhile rejected the latest WSJ story as expected, but others also have their doubts.

To get to the truth behind hazy intrigues, both clarity and credibility are essential at every stage. That has yet to happen consistently with 1MDB coverage.

Behind The Headlines by Bunn Nagara The Star

Bunn Nagara is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Related posts:

Najib is guilty of incompetence, he says: board to be blamed for 1MDB debacle, not me, I don't know !

Wising up to a Billion Dollar Whale of a tale

Let me be clear, I am innocent: Jho Low

Goldman Sachs banker's obscene commissions netted 11% from 1MDB believed to be most compelling evidence of rogue behaviour

Bigger thriller in Manila: Asean point man to deal with China

More than just a trade war, US in skirmises with China over IT, trade and 'national security'

Friday, 11 January 2019

Pushing blockchain revolution

(From left) World of Sharing business development manager Ice Wong, EUNEX (Asia) marketing director Kyan Lee, MBAEX chief executive officer Sebastian Ionut Diaconu, Lim, International Blockchain Research Club vice-president Sunny Chao and blockchain technology company Milletique OTO Distribution senior manager Jasmond Ng posing at Fintech Blockchain Summit in Kulim, Kedah

OVER 2,000 blockchain enthusiasts and leaders shared the latest ideas at Fintech Blockchain Summit which was held in Kulim, Kedah.

The summit themed ‘Blockchain Era, Connecting Future’ explored the potential of blockchain technology in various economic fields.

Delegates discussed blockchain trends and evolution to various platforms and digital assets.

Held at MBI Desaku Multi-function Convention Centre, the summit was jointly organised by World Crypto Organisation, Makefamous Creative Hub Sdn Bhd, Milletique OTO Distribution Sdn Bhd, Mightficent Global Sdn Bhd, Menbridges Academy Sdn Bhd and Macsintec Social Media Sdn Bhd.

Among those attending the summit was Super Minor Community vice-president Nicholas Lim who is also Chainverses magazine chief editor.

“Various groups joined us at the summit to contribute to the progression of financial technology through discussions and sharing sessions.

“We hope this summit will open up greater opportunities for development,” Lim said.

Lim opined that blockchain had good concepts and ideas.

However, he said the biggest resistance in the current blockchain development was the lack of economic support in terms of adoption.

“To overcome this, we need teamwork, good practical solutions and support from the community to push the adoption of blockchain in the country forward,” he added.

During the summit, four groups signed an MoU, including International Financial Technology Academy, Linton University College, Milletique Technology and Menbridges Academy.

The MoU aimed to promote blockchain financial technology through education with the hope of cultivating more blockchain experts in the future.

By emilia ismail The Star

Related posts: