THis is something that I think the Singapore government should consider. Currently, the only program that is active in such activities is the EDB SEEDs and SEEDs II program, BUT the main difference is that EDB does not discriminate whether the investors are institutional VCs, angel investors, blur people or idiots, just so long as the investors are not directly related to the founders or management of the start-up.
Giving tax credit to institutional VCs will help start-ups more than giving matching funding to Angels, primarily, in the Singapore context, IMHO, angel investors are not really angels and have unrealistic expectations of the start-up company and may end up hurting the very company they hope to make money from.
I also belive that TIF may have similar terms and conditions that they put into the fund they invest in, but word on the street is that TIF is currently not a very active participant. Hopefully I am wrong and TIF continues to encourage local VCs to invest locally.
From the Red Herring:
Florida Could Juice VC Activity
Legislation would encourage funding to back the state’s startups.
December 26, 2006
By Ken Schachter
Florida lawmakers are hoping a 2007 legislative lift will open the venture capital spigot to the state’s early-stage companies.
Though the session won’t start in earnest until March, lawmakers already are in talks to revive legislation designed to encourage venture capitalists to fund startups.
Sen. Evelyn Lynn said talks have begun to shape the language of new legislation designed to remedy the dearth of venture capital in the state.
One approach, she said, would seek to commercialize intellectual property emerging from the state university system.
“We’re talking about a lot of different things,” added the Daytona Beach Republican.
In 2006, Lynn co-sponsored legislation that would have provided $75 million in tax credits as backing for the Florida Opportunity Fund, a venture capital “fund of funds” to support state businesses and technologies.
In his 2006 budget proposal, Gov. Jeb Bush endorsed such a fund, noting that Florida accounted for only 0.3 percent of the nation’s seed financing, 1.2 percent of early stage funding and 1.4 percent of venture funding in 2004. Total state VC spending for 2003 and 2004 was more than $555 million on 114 deals, according to Enterprise Florida.
Though Bush will be leaving the governor’s mansion in 2007, his successor, Gov.-elect Charlie Crist, was a co-sponsor of the bill to create the Florida Opportunity Fund and is expected offer continued support. Under that plan, the state set aside $75 million in contingent tax credits as a guaranty for investors. Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah offer similar programs backed by tax credits.
The legislation would have mandated that VC funds receiving investments from the Florida Opportunity Fund put an equal amount of their own capital into Florida startups. The fund was designed to seek to withdraw its investments in portfolio companies within three to five years.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Cutting Subsidies for Non-Singaporeans
I have written in the past about the reduction in subsidies for non-Singaporeans, and what I thought about it.
In this week's the Edge Singapore, an article was also written on this topic, as part of the larger review of where Singapore currently finds herself in.
To this article is quite an eye opener. For instance some of the statistics qouted are quite jarring.
1) By cutting the subsidies for PRs and foreigners, the total savings realized per year is only 66 million, which is 0.86% of the total Singapore healthcare spending. The article goes to qoute that only 7% - 9% of PRs and non-PRs' treatment is subsidized, which means most PRs and non-PRs either do not use the public heatlthcare system here or are already going through the private route.
2) By increasing the GST, the cost of living and doing business in Singapore would have increased by 2% points, which could translate to roughly 3 - 4 billion in increased takings for the government. The GST cost will be bornes by everyone, regardless of whether they are visitors, Singaporeans, PRs, Expats, Aliens, Cats, Dogs and the like. BUT the support package will only benefit Singaporeans.
I hate to say it, but how fair is this? I most probably could say that it would not affect me much, but it would definitely affect the average factory operator who are PRs and non-citizens (and I believe there will be a lot of them!) I recall that when I was working in production, while we preferred hiring Singaporeans, we find that most Singaporean operators we hire would not last long due to the perceived hardship of the job.
3) The other area of the article that I was truly surprised was the GINI coefficient.
Wikipedia explains the GINI coefficient as:
"The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality of a distribution.....
The Gini coefficient is often used to measure income inequality. Here, 0 corresponds to perfect income equality (i.e. everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect income inequality (i.e. one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Singapore's GINI coefficient is 0.425, which sandwiches us between Burundi and Kenya. (Source)
The most ideal country: Azerbaijan, Denmark and Japan.
THe least ideal country: Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia
Now isn't it shameful that Singapore, which prides itself as a first world country could have such a low (relatively) GINI index?
So what happened? Is it the relentless pursuit of wealth? Is it the relenless pursuit of attracting high net worth individuals to relocate to Singapore that skewed the index? Or is it that the wealth that Singapore has amassed is actually concentrated on a few thousands of people, whereas the rest of the people still struggle.
With my very own eyes, I see that the riches of the country is spread among the upper strata. Those who could dish out 2,000+ psf for a 99 year leashold apartment, or give blank checks to property agents to "chope" choice units at 6th Avenue.
So much so that even I, who humbly consider myself in the slightly upper-middle class find it hard to swallow and comprehend how to survive in such a market. In the words of Alan Greenspan: Irrational Exuberance in the property market, and it sure looks like another bubble is forming or has formed.
Yet on the other side of the coin, we see families with 6, 7 people living in a 1 room flat, with the older kids resorting to sleeping at the void-decks or parks to get more "fresh air".
So what should the assistance package comprise of? GST offset for Singaporeans? Cheaper h0using for Singaporeans? More New Economy shares for Singaporeans? One time disbursement into Singaporean's CPF SA account?
THe problem with many solutions traditionally tried and tested recently results in an instant gratification feeling among those the package was meant to help. No long term plan, just instant redemption of the benefits.
I feel instead the government should allocate the money into education and pre-sickness education.
Perhaps better would be to not to raise the GST at all and then identify inefficiencies in the system to find ways to reduce cost.
But then again, how do you resolve robbing from peter, paul and mary and give back only to peter?
In this week's the Edge Singapore, an article was also written on this topic, as part of the larger review of where Singapore currently finds herself in.
To this article is quite an eye opener. For instance some of the statistics qouted are quite jarring.
1) By cutting the subsidies for PRs and foreigners, the total savings realized per year is only 66 million, which is 0.86% of the total Singapore healthcare spending. The article goes to qoute that only 7% - 9% of PRs and non-PRs' treatment is subsidized, which means most PRs and non-PRs either do not use the public heatlthcare system here or are already going through the private route.
2) By increasing the GST, the cost of living and doing business in Singapore would have increased by 2% points, which could translate to roughly 3 - 4 billion in increased takings for the government. The GST cost will be bornes by everyone, regardless of whether they are visitors, Singaporeans, PRs, Expats, Aliens, Cats, Dogs and the like. BUT the support package will only benefit Singaporeans.
I hate to say it, but how fair is this? I most probably could say that it would not affect me much, but it would definitely affect the average factory operator who are PRs and non-citizens (and I believe there will be a lot of them!) I recall that when I was working in production, while we preferred hiring Singaporeans, we find that most Singaporean operators we hire would not last long due to the perceived hardship of the job.
3) The other area of the article that I was truly surprised was the GINI coefficient.
Wikipedia explains the GINI coefficient as:
"The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality of a distribution.....
The Gini coefficient is often used to measure income inequality. Here, 0 corresponds to perfect income equality (i.e. everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect income inequality (i.e. one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Singapore's GINI coefficient is 0.425, which sandwiches us between Burundi and Kenya. (Source)
The most ideal country: Azerbaijan, Denmark and Japan.
THe least ideal country: Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia
Now isn't it shameful that Singapore, which prides itself as a first world country could have such a low (relatively) GINI index?
So what happened? Is it the relentless pursuit of wealth? Is it the relenless pursuit of attracting high net worth individuals to relocate to Singapore that skewed the index? Or is it that the wealth that Singapore has amassed is actually concentrated on a few thousands of people, whereas the rest of the people still struggle.
With my very own eyes, I see that the riches of the country is spread among the upper strata. Those who could dish out 2,000+ psf for a 99 year leashold apartment, or give blank checks to property agents to "chope" choice units at 6th Avenue.
So much so that even I, who humbly consider myself in the slightly upper-middle class find it hard to swallow and comprehend how to survive in such a market. In the words of Alan Greenspan: Irrational Exuberance in the property market, and it sure looks like another bubble is forming or has formed.
Yet on the other side of the coin, we see families with 6, 7 people living in a 1 room flat, with the older kids resorting to sleeping at the void-decks or parks to get more "fresh air".
So what should the assistance package comprise of? GST offset for Singaporeans? Cheaper h0using for Singaporeans? More New Economy shares for Singaporeans? One time disbursement into Singaporean's CPF SA account?
THe problem with many solutions traditionally tried and tested recently results in an instant gratification feeling among those the package was meant to help. No long term plan, just instant redemption of the benefits.
I feel instead the government should allocate the money into education and pre-sickness education.
Perhaps better would be to not to raise the GST at all and then identify inefficiencies in the system to find ways to reduce cost.
But then again, how do you resolve robbing from peter, paul and mary and give back only to peter?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Remaking the Biomedical Landscape in Singapore
Last week was a watershed week in terms of the biomedical industry (at least in my humble opinion)
It was announced that A*STAR would be making sweeping changes to further make advances in the translational research work, implementing what BMRC had been doing for the past couple of years, but with more focus of moving the research from the lab to the bedside.
While noble, I see hurdles to achieving this dream and it is something that I AM sure that the wisely advisory committee and the reknowed scientists at A*STAR are already thinking of how to overcome.
1) What happens once institutional research funding is completed?
While A*STAR and presumable NRF and the MOH will be ploughing money in during the research phase of the program, taking the lab results to a wider scale clinical trial would require a lot of funding. In the US, most of this is partially paid for using private capital as well as grants from the NIH. How would this be done in Singapore?
It would be foolhardy to depend solely on the government to take up the slack for such funding, but the truth is (as I have been saying upteenth time) is that there is a lack of private investors with the appetite to take on such an endevour.
THis remains to be seen of what will happen to the effort. I was once told that San Diego became a hotbed of biotech primarily there was a steady stream of VCs and private money, plus support from the local institutions to take out commercializable technologies to the early clinical trial phase, after which the big pharma companies came in with their multi-billion kitty to sign licensing deal to take the drug further into the clinical trial stage.
It would be an imperative that Singapore ought to mimic the lifecycle of San Diego in this respect.
2) Small population means inadequate datasets for researchers.
While Singapore may be rich in terms funding, it does have a weakness: small population.
Recruitment for clinical trials are a big headache in Singapore primarily because the population is so small and the need to find the proper metrics would mean that a very small percentage of the population is eligible to participate in ground-breaking clinical trials.
Case in point: I had the opportunity to speak with a couple of the researchers working in the neuro area and I was asking them that if they had won this and that award, wouldn't that indicate that the technology was sound and thus commercializable? THeir take to me was that they are able to simulate a lot of things on the computer, but require hard data (from humans) to correlate with their findings and it is the lack of the cooperation that hampers further commercialization of this technology.
To do this, the researchers need to be tied to a research or tertiary hospitals and unfortunately the only one around is NUH and NUS, and there is only a small clinical trial center there. THe other clinical trial center is in SGH though I am unsure what sort of trials they run there.
TO be successful, then it would be common sense to expand the clinical trial to beyond the shores of Singapore, but then it raises the issue of cross-border funding, ethics committee approval, oversight and recruitment.
But I think this is a move in the right direction, and I know that many top level people whom I have had a change of interacting with in the past have been advocating such a push, together with a sound investment theme to assist good targets and form a company to maximize the push through the clinical trial system with private money.
THese are interesting times as I see a deviation from the set standard rule of only attracting MNCs to locate into SIngapore. Now we are looking to start a mini San Diego and for the investment community, while perhaps another 2 years away, I do think this as exciting as there will be a need for biotech knowledgeable investors to take these technologies beyond our shores.
It was announced that A*STAR would be making sweeping changes to further make advances in the translational research work, implementing what BMRC had been doing for the past couple of years, but with more focus of moving the research from the lab to the bedside.
While noble, I see hurdles to achieving this dream and it is something that I AM sure that the wisely advisory committee and the reknowed scientists at A*STAR are already thinking of how to overcome.
1) What happens once institutional research funding is completed?
While A*STAR and presumable NRF and the MOH will be ploughing money in during the research phase of the program, taking the lab results to a wider scale clinical trial would require a lot of funding. In the US, most of this is partially paid for using private capital as well as grants from the NIH. How would this be done in Singapore?
It would be foolhardy to depend solely on the government to take up the slack for such funding, but the truth is (as I have been saying upteenth time) is that there is a lack of private investors with the appetite to take on such an endevour.
THis remains to be seen of what will happen to the effort. I was once told that San Diego became a hotbed of biotech primarily there was a steady stream of VCs and private money, plus support from the local institutions to take out commercializable technologies to the early clinical trial phase, after which the big pharma companies came in with their multi-billion kitty to sign licensing deal to take the drug further into the clinical trial stage.
It would be an imperative that Singapore ought to mimic the lifecycle of San Diego in this respect.
2) Small population means inadequate datasets for researchers.
While Singapore may be rich in terms funding, it does have a weakness: small population.
Recruitment for clinical trials are a big headache in Singapore primarily because the population is so small and the need to find the proper metrics would mean that a very small percentage of the population is eligible to participate in ground-breaking clinical trials.
Case in point: I had the opportunity to speak with a couple of the researchers working in the neuro area and I was asking them that if they had won this and that award, wouldn't that indicate that the technology was sound and thus commercializable? THeir take to me was that they are able to simulate a lot of things on the computer, but require hard data (from humans) to correlate with their findings and it is the lack of the cooperation that hampers further commercialization of this technology.
To do this, the researchers need to be tied to a research or tertiary hospitals and unfortunately the only one around is NUH and NUS, and there is only a small clinical trial center there. THe other clinical trial center is in SGH though I am unsure what sort of trials they run there.
TO be successful, then it would be common sense to expand the clinical trial to beyond the shores of Singapore, but then it raises the issue of cross-border funding, ethics committee approval, oversight and recruitment.
But I think this is a move in the right direction, and I know that many top level people whom I have had a change of interacting with in the past have been advocating such a push, together with a sound investment theme to assist good targets and form a company to maximize the push through the clinical trial system with private money.
THese are interesting times as I see a deviation from the set standard rule of only attracting MNCs to locate into SIngapore. Now we are looking to start a mini San Diego and for the investment community, while perhaps another 2 years away, I do think this as exciting as there will be a need for biotech knowledgeable investors to take these technologies beyond our shores.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans
Now how does one account for who is Singaporean and who is not. Simple right? The Singaporeans are those carrying the pink or red IC with them.
And correct is the answer.
Why all the debate? It is because starting about 5 years ago, the government has started to differentiate the difference between Singapore and non-Singaporean. Previously the joke was that the difference between a Singaporean and a PR is that Singaporeans get to vote, which essentially means the same as PR as most of the time Singaporean hardly need to think about who to vote for (again this has changed in the past 5 years)
So it has come to this. Singaporeans get to enjoy better reimbursements for healthcare, education, welfare, workfare bonus, etc etc etc and the list goes on and on and on.
Where as PR, get to enjoy some, but not all of this.
And foreigners.. well enjoy none of this.
In today's Today paper, it seems that some foreigners are starting to raise a stink about this. It was said that would Singaporeans living overseas stand for having multiple classes of service or payment if they were living in say, the US or UK?
Which has got me wondering... I've spent a good amount of my time in the US, Malaysian and now Singapore.
And I have to say this.
I think the government is right to differentiate between Singaporean and non-citizens. Why? Because it's real duty is first and foremost to the country and the citizens of the country.
Now comes the hard part. Foreigners (including PRs) make up 25% of the population, therefore, not small change.
Differentiate too much and it becomes discriminatory. Even now, you hear people saying that jobs should go to Singaporean first and then only foreigners. THis is also the same in the US where before an employer can hire a foreigner, they must "proove" (in the loosest sense of the word) that no citizens can meet the criteria for the job. I've heard that this is something easy to overcome as the employers would just find some kink in the guy's resume that no one else has and then make this criteria why he's hiring this foreign guy.
Therefore, a PR or foreigner in Singapore, in the typical sense, would be upper-middle class family, with possibly 1 or 2 income earners, and thus do not require much financial assistance from the government. However the opposite was true as well, in arguing that these people also pay taxes to the government, thus should also enjoy some benefit of the services provided by the government to all people residing in Singapore.
Therefore, how do we distinguish such services? Roads are equally shared amongst the people irregardless of what IC and passport you carry. Water, Electricity but these are not subsidized (at least not that I know of) by the government. And healthcare and education is most likely one of the most important services that is common across all spectrum of people in Singapore.
With the exception of those going to international school, I do believe that it is not justifiable that foreigners pay full-rate for the public school system and healthcare system. All foreigners going to a restructured hospital is automatically considered a full paying patient.
So unless the government is able to clearly and transparently show that even "full paying" students and patients are partially subsidized by the government, then I fear that Singapore is headed down the path of discriminatory practices for her PRs and resident foreigners.
Rather than leaving this commentary hanging, perhaps in a too simplistic sense, the government should tier the payment for the 3 classes of residents: 80 or 90% payment for foreigners residing in Singapore, 40 or 50% payment for PRs, and full subsidy or token payment for Singaporeans.
THe only thing I can say is that I can appreciate the difficulty these bureaucrats have in trying to determine the line, for it is a fine line between making the citizens feel like citizens and the foreigners feeling discriminated against.
GOOD LUCK !
And correct is the answer.
Why all the debate? It is because starting about 5 years ago, the government has started to differentiate the difference between Singapore and non-Singaporean. Previously the joke was that the difference between a Singaporean and a PR is that Singaporeans get to vote, which essentially means the same as PR as most of the time Singaporean hardly need to think about who to vote for (again this has changed in the past 5 years)
So it has come to this. Singaporeans get to enjoy better reimbursements for healthcare, education, welfare, workfare bonus, etc etc etc and the list goes on and on and on.
Where as PR, get to enjoy some, but not all of this.
And foreigners.. well enjoy none of this.
In today's Today paper, it seems that some foreigners are starting to raise a stink about this. It was said that would Singaporeans living overseas stand for having multiple classes of service or payment if they were living in say, the US or UK?
Which has got me wondering... I've spent a good amount of my time in the US, Malaysian and now Singapore.
And I have to say this.
I think the government is right to differentiate between Singaporean and non-citizens. Why? Because it's real duty is first and foremost to the country and the citizens of the country.
Now comes the hard part. Foreigners (including PRs) make up 25% of the population, therefore, not small change.
Differentiate too much and it becomes discriminatory. Even now, you hear people saying that jobs should go to Singaporean first and then only foreigners. THis is also the same in the US where before an employer can hire a foreigner, they must "proove" (in the loosest sense of the word) that no citizens can meet the criteria for the job. I've heard that this is something easy to overcome as the employers would just find some kink in the guy's resume that no one else has and then make this criteria why he's hiring this foreign guy.
Therefore, a PR or foreigner in Singapore, in the typical sense, would be upper-middle class family, with possibly 1 or 2 income earners, and thus do not require much financial assistance from the government. However the opposite was true as well, in arguing that these people also pay taxes to the government, thus should also enjoy some benefit of the services provided by the government to all people residing in Singapore.
Therefore, how do we distinguish such services? Roads are equally shared amongst the people irregardless of what IC and passport you carry. Water, Electricity but these are not subsidized (at least not that I know of) by the government. And healthcare and education is most likely one of the most important services that is common across all spectrum of people in Singapore.
With the exception of those going to international school, I do believe that it is not justifiable that foreigners pay full-rate for the public school system and healthcare system. All foreigners going to a restructured hospital is automatically considered a full paying patient.
So unless the government is able to clearly and transparently show that even "full paying" students and patients are partially subsidized by the government, then I fear that Singapore is headed down the path of discriminatory practices for her PRs and resident foreigners.
Rather than leaving this commentary hanging, perhaps in a too simplistic sense, the government should tier the payment for the 3 classes of residents: 80 or 90% payment for foreigners residing in Singapore, 40 or 50% payment for PRs, and full subsidy or token payment for Singaporeans.
THe only thing I can say is that I can appreciate the difficulty these bureaucrats have in trying to determine the line, for it is a fine line between making the citizens feel like citizens and the foreigners feeling discriminated against.
GOOD LUCK !
Thursday, December 7, 2006
James Kim and the Shrinkng World
This is a bit of my usual topic of discussion, but I felt it was important for me to blog this.
Today I learnt, sadly, that the CNET editor, and more importantly father to 2, James Kim was found not to be alive after getting lost with his family during the Thansgiving break.
My heart goes out to the Kim family for their loss.
Why do I fell compelled to blog about James and not others? I really don't know why?
Perhaps it was because he and I were born on the same year.
Perhaps it was because he and I were fathers.
Perhaps it was because he and I were fathers to lovely girls.
Perhaps it was because he and I have as our youngest to be below 1 year old.
Perhaps it was because I felt the as I, he had so much more to live for.
But alas, it was not to be for him.
But 10 years ago, I would not have known who was James Kim, or that he had passed on. But this goes to show the power of the internet and the continually shrinking world around us. The power of Information Technology where there is no longer any time lag for news to occur, when a news item from point A could be picked up in an instant on the other side of the Earth.
My condolences go out to the Kim family and those who knew him.
Today I learnt, sadly, that the CNET editor, and more importantly father to 2, James Kim was found not to be alive after getting lost with his family during the Thansgiving break.
My heart goes out to the Kim family for their loss.
Why do I fell compelled to blog about James and not others? I really don't know why?
Perhaps it was because he and I were born on the same year.
Perhaps it was because he and I were fathers.
Perhaps it was because he and I were fathers to lovely girls.
Perhaps it was because he and I have as our youngest to be below 1 year old.
Perhaps it was because I felt the as I, he had so much more to live for.
But alas, it was not to be for him.
But 10 years ago, I would not have known who was James Kim, or that he had passed on. But this goes to show the power of the internet and the continually shrinking world around us. The power of Information Technology where there is no longer any time lag for news to occur, when a news item from point A could be picked up in an instant on the other side of the Earth.
My condolences go out to the Kim family and those who knew him.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Greed
THe place where I am currently living in is considering joining the en-bloc fever. While I wasn't around to participate in the discussion, yesterday I found out that the proposed method of disbursing the proceeds from the en-bloc has run into some sticky issues.
Why?
Primarily, in the condo where I live there are units of multiple sizes, ranging from 1800 sq ft to 900+ sq ft. In terms of paying for the maintenance and sinking fund, owners of the 1800 sq ft units pay an equivalent of 4 shares, whereas the rest pay 3 shares worth, each share being worth X amount of dollars.
However, in the event that the sale is successfult, the proposed disbursement will be made based on the land area of the apartment.
THis is where the unhappiness come in. Some unknown person has taken the trouble to calculate the potential gain or loss, by comparing the potential sale value of the condo against the various land area, units of share and a combination of 50-50 land area. Good work.. whoever you are.
Then there are accusations that the en-bloc committee is completely made of owners from the larger units.
Now I have a problem. While I understand that the unhappiness of these smaller units, but:
1) The condo sale has not even gone through yet. Personally, I think this is the best opportunity to realize some gain from the investment. I love the place I am staying in now because I doubt if anyone will ever find such a nice, spacious condo in Singapore anymore. But I am also a realist as I know that the unit prices in the open market will never match the proposed price shoud the en-bloc succeed.
2) I do not think it is fair to accuse the en-bloc committee of any supposed conspiracy to fatten their own pocket. THe invitation was open to ALL owners, regardless of the size of their units. WHY did any of the owners of the smaller block not find it in their interest to join the committee. The committee members volunteered their own time and effort for everyone, and in doing so, I would rather put my trust in them to do the best for everyone than some greedy fella who after seeing the potential $$$ amount decides to find ways and means to fatten his or her own pocket.
3) This person has remained anonymous. I think this is a disgrace. At the very least you should put down who you are and a contact so that people will know that you are not operating by night. If you have put in the effort to do all the calculation, and posted notifiers in people mail-boxes, you should also be brave enough to put down you contact. If for nothing else, it gives owners sharing your view a person to rally with. Plus there is no action item. Come on, you can't be that naive? The best way to catch the committee's attention is to form a group to forward your cause. Since you have not left a number, I would assume that you are just an agent provocateur and nothing more (not a leader)
4) I do not think this agent provocateur has done all his sums. Perhaps it may be better for him to work with the en-bloc committee instead of blowing more smoke to confuse other owners.
In the end, I for one will sign for the en-bloc.
Why? Because if successful, this may represent the only chance for us to upgrade to a bigger home (which we were planning on in any case). But I do emphatize with those that have stayed for many years as the cost of getting such a large flat will not longer come cheap, and most will find that they will have to start a new housing loan again, unless they are willing to move to a smaller flat or to a HDB.
Why?
Primarily, in the condo where I live there are units of multiple sizes, ranging from 1800 sq ft to 900+ sq ft. In terms of paying for the maintenance and sinking fund, owners of the 1800 sq ft units pay an equivalent of 4 shares, whereas the rest pay 3 shares worth, each share being worth X amount of dollars.
However, in the event that the sale is successfult, the proposed disbursement will be made based on the land area of the apartment.
THis is where the unhappiness come in. Some unknown person has taken the trouble to calculate the potential gain or loss, by comparing the potential sale value of the condo against the various land area, units of share and a combination of 50-50 land area. Good work.. whoever you are.
Then there are accusations that the en-bloc committee is completely made of owners from the larger units.
Now I have a problem. While I understand that the unhappiness of these smaller units, but:
1) The condo sale has not even gone through yet. Personally, I think this is the best opportunity to realize some gain from the investment. I love the place I am staying in now because I doubt if anyone will ever find such a nice, spacious condo in Singapore anymore. But I am also a realist as I know that the unit prices in the open market will never match the proposed price shoud the en-bloc succeed.
2) I do not think it is fair to accuse the en-bloc committee of any supposed conspiracy to fatten their own pocket. THe invitation was open to ALL owners, regardless of the size of their units. WHY did any of the owners of the smaller block not find it in their interest to join the committee. The committee members volunteered their own time and effort for everyone, and in doing so, I would rather put my trust in them to do the best for everyone than some greedy fella who after seeing the potential $$$ amount decides to find ways and means to fatten his or her own pocket.
3) This person has remained anonymous. I think this is a disgrace. At the very least you should put down who you are and a contact so that people will know that you are not operating by night. If you have put in the effort to do all the calculation, and posted notifiers in people mail-boxes, you should also be brave enough to put down you contact. If for nothing else, it gives owners sharing your view a person to rally with. Plus there is no action item. Come on, you can't be that naive? The best way to catch the committee's attention is to form a group to forward your cause. Since you have not left a number, I would assume that you are just an agent provocateur and nothing more (not a leader)
4) I do not think this agent provocateur has done all his sums. Perhaps it may be better for him to work with the en-bloc committee instead of blowing more smoke to confuse other owners.
In the end, I for one will sign for the en-bloc.
Why? Because if successful, this may represent the only chance for us to upgrade to a bigger home (which we were planning on in any case). But I do emphatize with those that have stayed for many years as the cost of getting such a large flat will not longer come cheap, and most will find that they will have to start a new housing loan again, unless they are willing to move to a smaller flat or to a HDB.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Singapore of the Future
Over the weekend, there was an op-ed that was written by Mr Teo MK, who is the Perm Sec in charge of R&D as in the Prime Minister's office and Ministry of Finance.
I think his article quite interesting about how R&D can be developed to benefit Singapore.
If I were to imaging his plan, it would be an inverted pyramid, where at the base would be the smallest portion and the top the widest portion. It starts whentechnology is created, protected and then commercialized and brought to the world. In the ideal circumstances, a single platform technology could be used to create many different products.
Example could be something like bluetooth technology. At the base, bluetooth is a communication protocol between several devices at short ranges, aka PAN (personal area network). One product at the now quite ubiquitious wireless headset that we use with our handphones. Next, we now see AD2P which is stereo bluetooth headset, and we also see bluetooth enable storage, etc etc. Therefore, theoretically from one technology there are multple spin-off opportunities to be exploited.
However, as great as the concept sounds, there are distinct difficulties in doing this. Primarily, bluetooth technology is not something cooked up by one party but a consortium of companies , plus not every technology being created is platform in nature. Therefore how does one pick winners?
I once had an interested (albeit short) conversation about this. I believe that industry would dictate what it wants, and thus drive R&D whereas my esteemed colleague at that time, was of the opinion that R&D should drive industry. So which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
I still believe that R&D should be guided in principle by industry. Why? Primarily because industry would have taken the effort to determine user requirements. Too often I have seen project requests for funding, not because it was what users had said they wanted, but because it was the neat thing to do. But perhaps that is the academia's way to exploring the outer limits of technology.
But what is most important is how much of this technology is commercialized. Even if we take the altruistic position of bringing benefit to Singapore companies, in the end, commercial returns from this R&D effort must be measured. If the industry is not taking up the exploitation of R&D that has been paid for by the government, then it shows that either:
a) These local companies have no clue how to exploit the technology
b) These technology are of no use to them
c) or the answer lies somewhere in between.
If C is the answer then, this is where Venture capitalists would come in, as they would provide the opportunity and platform for the reseachers, or creator of the said technology to commercialize it own their own behalf.
But I do not see how local VCs are being supported for this endevour. Admittedly, Singapore is muct too small a market for a company to base its business plan on, especially a technology company.
But how does one break the conundrum of the VCs not having enough dealflows, and technopreneurs not having enough funding sources.
What do you think?
I think his article quite interesting about how R&D can be developed to benefit Singapore.
If I were to imaging his plan, it would be an inverted pyramid, where at the base would be the smallest portion and the top the widest portion. It starts whentechnology is created, protected and then commercialized and brought to the world. In the ideal circumstances, a single platform technology could be used to create many different products.
Example could be something like bluetooth technology. At the base, bluetooth is a communication protocol between several devices at short ranges, aka PAN (personal area network). One product at the now quite ubiquitious wireless headset that we use with our handphones. Next, we now see AD2P which is stereo bluetooth headset, and we also see bluetooth enable storage, etc etc. Therefore, theoretically from one technology there are multple spin-off opportunities to be exploited.
However, as great as the concept sounds, there are distinct difficulties in doing this. Primarily, bluetooth technology is not something cooked up by one party but a consortium of companies , plus not every technology being created is platform in nature. Therefore how does one pick winners?
I once had an interested (albeit short) conversation about this. I believe that industry would dictate what it wants, and thus drive R&D whereas my esteemed colleague at that time, was of the opinion that R&D should drive industry. So which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
I still believe that R&D should be guided in principle by industry. Why? Primarily because industry would have taken the effort to determine user requirements. Too often I have seen project requests for funding, not because it was what users had said they wanted, but because it was the neat thing to do. But perhaps that is the academia's way to exploring the outer limits of technology.
But what is most important is how much of this technology is commercialized. Even if we take the altruistic position of bringing benefit to Singapore companies, in the end, commercial returns from this R&D effort must be measured. If the industry is not taking up the exploitation of R&D that has been paid for by the government, then it shows that either:
a) These local companies have no clue how to exploit the technology
b) These technology are of no use to them
c) or the answer lies somewhere in between.
If C is the answer then, this is where Venture capitalists would come in, as they would provide the opportunity and platform for the reseachers, or creator of the said technology to commercialize it own their own behalf.
But I do not see how local VCs are being supported for this endevour. Admittedly, Singapore is muct too small a market for a company to base its business plan on, especially a technology company.
But how does one break the conundrum of the VCs not having enough dealflows, and technopreneurs not having enough funding sources.
What do you think?
Friday, November 24, 2006
GST Increase
The PM had announced the GST increase in FY2007 from the current 5% to 7%.
The primary reason behind the increase was to assist the lower income group to close the income gap between the bottom and top quartile.
As a consumer, I do not look forward to this increase, as it would impact everything that we do on a daily basis. However, it has been eluded that the corporate and individual (not sure about this) tax would be lowered to maintain the competitiveness of the country. If it means lower taxes, then it is good.
But how does it stack up? I guess the rationale is that the rich folks would not mind spending more to purchase that $ 10,000 plasma or LCD TV or home theater system, but the not-so-rich would only spend, perhaps $200 to buy a normal TV. Therefore, the state coffers would increase without taxing the no-so-rich too much.
While I have not taken the time or effort to analyze all the possible scenarios, I do worry about how the government would spend the extra money to assist those who need the financial help. Many commentators have openly questioned if this was the start of a welfare state?
More intriguingly, I see some commentators pushing for early childhood education as a way to get the needy get out of their povertry trap, and I think this is a fantastic idea. While I am a proponent of the meritocracy system here in Singapore, I do see certain downsides to this system, especially when it comes to awarding scholarships to students.
Most scholarships are based on grades (even if not, a big chunk of the consideration is based on grades), but if 2 persons of the same age, but not of the same social status were to compete for the scholarship, the odds are that the student whose parents are from the upper-middle class to upper class strata would have better grades than the one who is not on this strata.
Why? Primarily because this kid would have had the benefit of the best pre-school, tuition, enrichment and whatever classes that you can think of, that money can buy. Whereas the other kid (from the not well to do family) may not such opportunties, but nonetheless strives to suceed the best they can.
So who deserves to get the scholarship? If it were me as the parent, I'd let the poorer kids have a chance, especially if I could already pay for my kids' education by myself. If the poor kid who got the scholarship goes on to become a manager, a VP, a minister, then the system would have done its job for this kid.
What do you think?
The primary reason behind the increase was to assist the lower income group to close the income gap between the bottom and top quartile.
As a consumer, I do not look forward to this increase, as it would impact everything that we do on a daily basis. However, it has been eluded that the corporate and individual (not sure about this) tax would be lowered to maintain the competitiveness of the country. If it means lower taxes, then it is good.
But how does it stack up? I guess the rationale is that the rich folks would not mind spending more to purchase that $ 10,000 plasma or LCD TV or home theater system, but the not-so-rich would only spend, perhaps $200 to buy a normal TV. Therefore, the state coffers would increase without taxing the no-so-rich too much.
While I have not taken the time or effort to analyze all the possible scenarios, I do worry about how the government would spend the extra money to assist those who need the financial help. Many commentators have openly questioned if this was the start of a welfare state?
More intriguingly, I see some commentators pushing for early childhood education as a way to get the needy get out of their povertry trap, and I think this is a fantastic idea. While I am a proponent of the meritocracy system here in Singapore, I do see certain downsides to this system, especially when it comes to awarding scholarships to students.
Most scholarships are based on grades (even if not, a big chunk of the consideration is based on grades), but if 2 persons of the same age, but not of the same social status were to compete for the scholarship, the odds are that the student whose parents are from the upper-middle class to upper class strata would have better grades than the one who is not on this strata.
Why? Primarily because this kid would have had the benefit of the best pre-school, tuition, enrichment and whatever classes that you can think of, that money can buy. Whereas the other kid (from the not well to do family) may not such opportunties, but nonetheless strives to suceed the best they can.
So who deserves to get the scholarship? If it were me as the parent, I'd let the poorer kids have a chance, especially if I could already pay for my kids' education by myself. If the poor kid who got the scholarship goes on to become a manager, a VP, a minister, then the system would have done its job for this kid.
What do you think?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
R&D in Singapore
This is quite a favorite topic of mine. Those who have discovered this blog and know who I am would know why.
It is a well known fact that Singapore has commited S$ 5 B over the next 5 years on R&D alone. THis is split among the National Research Foundation, A*STAR and the Ministry of Education. The main thrusts of the R&D effort is on biomedical, water and energy and new media (ie animation)
While the funding is being lauded almost universally worldwide, I do wonder how much is this effort is spent on commercializing the resulting technologies? How much effort has gone into the thinking process of what to do post-project?
Those who are well versed with the R&D scene in the past will know that there was a time when technopreneurship was supported and encouraged among the research centers in Singapore. Now this was during the last technology bubble and if the stats of Silicon Valley can be transported to Singapore, I can assure that many of the companies spun off during the bubble days are either dead or dormant or zombie'fied. THis is sadly the world of capitalism and free markets.
Now the situation has improved and companies spun off during that time who are still surviving are thriving, but that lesson (of the high mortality rates of start-ups) have caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme.
But moving foward, especially with the new leadership about to take over the A*STAR organization, perhaps it is time for the incoming Chairman to think about various models that promote entrepreneurship among the researchers.
Do we encourage researcher to become entrepreneurs? Are they the best entrepreneurs? Would they then spend more time priming their research topics that will make good business? Or will they stick to the true cause of research: extending and expanding the general body of knowledge? Will they seek to enrich themselves at the expense of Singapore?
I think this are all worthy questions, but it is a minefield. One can discuss the pros and cons of such a move until the cows come home without resolve.
However, one radical (or not) approach that I can think off is .... outsourcing.
Outsourcing of early stage investment to a VC firm. This model has been successfully proven in the University of Chicago by ARCH Ventures, and now being replicated in many areas.
What is the benefit of outsourcing this effort?
1) The team who receives the funding will comprise of people who have previously done it. They could do it on their own, or partner with overseas VC firms. But bottom line, the managing partners would very likely be people who have done venture investment.
2) These folks would have their own network of investors, both locally and overseas, thus projects being championed and funded by them would stand a higher chance of being funded until the start-up is either acquired or IPO.
3) These folks would also have the ability to manage the fund as they see fit, and not be ruled by bureaucracy. These folks could opt to invest 0.5 M at the start to kick start the team, and then upon successful milestone, opt to syndicate or lead a new round and invest a further 1 M or so, carefully calculating the risk-reward between further investment and dilution.
4) Foremost, the public servants must acknowledge the fact that these guys are in it for the money. The sooner they realize this, the better it will be for everyone. There is no altruisic goals behind it. It is purely for the money, and so you have gotta trust that these guys will be professional enough to manage your money for you. Therefore you cannot run it like another stat board or government arm. They get paid well (most of these guys do anyways.. or at least the good ones), and when they get a successful exit, they will get their carry.
5) There will be good deals, bad deals, sour deals, and deals that you kick yourself for missing. Again, the sooner the public servants realize this fact, the happier they will be. Take for instance, the investors of Google.com would most likely be sitting of a huge pile of cash. Whereas the investors of... excite.com would most probably be happy just to get some money back. Both are search engines, both got their start just before the bubble and both have catchy names. Sometimes, it's the technology but most investors would tell you, success is a combination of doing due-diligence and luck.
6) You may loose all your money. To be honest, you most probably won't loose all of it if you're smart (commit, call, liquidate etc). But it would be foolish to peg an unreasonable ROI on the scheme.
But after poking around, I firmly believe this model is needed. THe government can choose to go with the many foreign VC firms that "specialize" in such venture investment activities, or it can take a chance and look for home grown talent.
But prior to giving the money away for someone to run, it is common sense to have competitive bidding, include management fee, carry interest and perhaps more importantly, making sure these guys know the current state of R&D in Singapore, the challenges faced by start-up companies, and a plan to bridge both of these chasm. Oh yes, plus also their CV to make sure you don't give the farm away to someone who has no experience doing venture investments.
C'mon Uncle Lee (referring to the PM), c'mon uncle Tony (referring to the head of the NRF), c'mon Uncle Lim (referring to Minister of Trade and Industry), put 1% of your % B into a competitive bid for VC firms/partnerships to manage it on behalf of the government's effort to translate the R&D effort into some sort of economic after-effect that could benefit all everyone (be it the researchers that conceived the technology, to the managers who run the company, to the workers to man the company).
It is a well known fact that Singapore has commited S$ 5 B over the next 5 years on R&D alone. THis is split among the National Research Foundation, A*STAR and the Ministry of Education. The main thrusts of the R&D effort is on biomedical, water and energy and new media (ie animation)
While the funding is being lauded almost universally worldwide, I do wonder how much is this effort is spent on commercializing the resulting technologies? How much effort has gone into the thinking process of what to do post-project?
Those who are well versed with the R&D scene in the past will know that there was a time when technopreneurship was supported and encouraged among the research centers in Singapore. Now this was during the last technology bubble and if the stats of Silicon Valley can be transported to Singapore, I can assure that many of the companies spun off during the bubble days are either dead or dormant or zombie'fied. THis is sadly the world of capitalism and free markets.
Now the situation has improved and companies spun off during that time who are still surviving are thriving, but that lesson (of the high mortality rates of start-ups) have caused the pendulum to swing to the other extreme.
But moving foward, especially with the new leadership about to take over the A*STAR organization, perhaps it is time for the incoming Chairman to think about various models that promote entrepreneurship among the researchers.
Do we encourage researcher to become entrepreneurs? Are they the best entrepreneurs? Would they then spend more time priming their research topics that will make good business? Or will they stick to the true cause of research: extending and expanding the general body of knowledge? Will they seek to enrich themselves at the expense of Singapore?
I think this are all worthy questions, but it is a minefield. One can discuss the pros and cons of such a move until the cows come home without resolve.
However, one radical (or not) approach that I can think off is .... outsourcing.
Outsourcing of early stage investment to a VC firm. This model has been successfully proven in the University of Chicago by ARCH Ventures, and now being replicated in many areas.
What is the benefit of outsourcing this effort?
1) The team who receives the funding will comprise of people who have previously done it. They could do it on their own, or partner with overseas VC firms. But bottom line, the managing partners would very likely be people who have done venture investment.
2) These folks would have their own network of investors, both locally and overseas, thus projects being championed and funded by them would stand a higher chance of being funded until the start-up is either acquired or IPO.
3) These folks would also have the ability to manage the fund as they see fit, and not be ruled by bureaucracy. These folks could opt to invest 0.5 M at the start to kick start the team, and then upon successful milestone, opt to syndicate or lead a new round and invest a further 1 M or so, carefully calculating the risk-reward between further investment and dilution.
4) Foremost, the public servants must acknowledge the fact that these guys are in it for the money. The sooner they realize this, the better it will be for everyone. There is no altruisic goals behind it. It is purely for the money, and so you have gotta trust that these guys will be professional enough to manage your money for you. Therefore you cannot run it like another stat board or government arm. They get paid well (most of these guys do anyways.. or at least the good ones), and when they get a successful exit, they will get their carry.
5) There will be good deals, bad deals, sour deals, and deals that you kick yourself for missing. Again, the sooner the public servants realize this fact, the happier they will be. Take for instance, the investors of Google.com would most likely be sitting of a huge pile of cash. Whereas the investors of... excite.com would most probably be happy just to get some money back. Both are search engines, both got their start just before the bubble and both have catchy names. Sometimes, it's the technology but most investors would tell you, success is a combination of doing due-diligence and luck.
6) You may loose all your money. To be honest, you most probably won't loose all of it if you're smart (commit, call, liquidate etc). But it would be foolish to peg an unreasonable ROI on the scheme.
But after poking around, I firmly believe this model is needed. THe government can choose to go with the many foreign VC firms that "specialize" in such venture investment activities, or it can take a chance and look for home grown talent.
But prior to giving the money away for someone to run, it is common sense to have competitive bidding, include management fee, carry interest and perhaps more importantly, making sure these guys know the current state of R&D in Singapore, the challenges faced by start-up companies, and a plan to bridge both of these chasm. Oh yes, plus also their CV to make sure you don't give the farm away to someone who has no experience doing venture investments.
C'mon Uncle Lee (referring to the PM), c'mon uncle Tony (referring to the head of the NRF), c'mon Uncle Lim (referring to Minister of Trade and Industry), put 1% of your % B into a competitive bid for VC firms/partnerships to manage it on behalf of the government's effort to translate the R&D effort into some sort of economic after-effect that could benefit all everyone (be it the researchers that conceived the technology, to the managers who run the company, to the workers to man the company).
Monday, November 13, 2006
Virgin Post
Well this is my virgin post.... well perhaps not exactly. I also blog under another pseudonym, and good luck to you if you can find it.
In essence, this blog is my candid view of the Singapore economy, and perhaps the world in general. I felt the need to produce a dichotomy of myself, one as a serious viewer of the economy and investments, and the other, a naughtier part of myself.
For today's post, I would like to pick on the article that was written on The Edge Singapore about 2 weeks back on the Singapore economy and the need to perhaps restructure the economy now rather than wait for another bubble or correction to happen.
The article (I shall have to come back with the title and the name of the author) rightly pointed out that the Singapore economy has not had it so good in the past 5-6 years, and may not see such good times perhaps for awhile.
All this while, the government has been harping on the ever growing divide between the have's and have not's and the sacred cow is that of some sort of welfare. This I will leave for another time.
The point I wanted to stress on was the point that much of the Singapore GDP is reliant on MNCs and GLCs and a few successful private enterprise. While GLCs are ever reliant to be anchored in Singapore, I can't say that much for MNCs. It is and will always be a business decision on whether to stay rooted in Singapore or to move to a lower cost country.
THe fallacy of the MNC approach and how it benefits the Singapore economy is that the MNC is, if you will, at the top of the food chain pyramid. In the second tier there are suppliers to these MNCs. Some of these will be MNCs themselves (ie, Applied Materials, KNS,etc) and some will be local players. Of late, we have been seeing the local suppliers having a good run on the SGX, like MMI and Jurong Tech, who supply to MNCs such as Seagate and Motorola.
What would happen if Seagate or Motorola were suddently up and relocation to another country? These companies would certainly have to move with them as their lifelines depend on the MNCs? And so what becomes of the Singapore economy? Jobs would naturally be lost and the impact would be felt on the lower income group people.
Instead, I think not enough attention has been put to develop our own companies that market to the world, instead of just to MNCs. These guys chase dollars whever the dollars may be. These guys bring Singapore's cutting edge to the world.
Prior to the bubble of 2000, there were dreams of making Singapore into another Silicon Valley with the TIF Venture FoF, etc etc. Lately it seems that it has all be quiet on this front. Even with the latest announcement by EDB on the Business Angels Scheme, I'm amazed at what is termed as business angels in this context.
THe manager of one such scheme has stated that he'd like to see some revenue as part of the consideration for investment. THen it defeats the purpose of angels as angels are people that entrepreneurs turn to when Venture Capitalists (VCs) fear to tread.
In Singapore, there is a lack of such risk taking angels, with most VCs preferring to invest in Series A or expansion stage companies. I know a friend who has tried to raise an early stage fund to no avail. There are some early stage VCs such as Upstream, but these are too few and far in between.
What is the use of spending all those billions of hard earned money on R&D where commercialization or future economic impact of these R&D projects are an afterthought? There are foreign VCs that specializes in helping technopreneurs develop their companies from such an early stage and I think there are opportunities for Singaporeans or locals to develop such a niche and prosper. But beware, it may take a few cycles of losing ones pants before striking it rich. And the investment value chain needs to be beefed up.
VCs tell me there is a dearth of good investible projects in Singapore, but as I see it, technopreneurs have a hard time getting into the radar scope of such VCs when they can't get access to early money.
TO be continued....
In essence, this blog is my candid view of the Singapore economy, and perhaps the world in general. I felt the need to produce a dichotomy of myself, one as a serious viewer of the economy and investments, and the other, a naughtier part of myself.
For today's post, I would like to pick on the article that was written on The Edge Singapore about 2 weeks back on the Singapore economy and the need to perhaps restructure the economy now rather than wait for another bubble or correction to happen.
The article (I shall have to come back with the title and the name of the author) rightly pointed out that the Singapore economy has not had it so good in the past 5-6 years, and may not see such good times perhaps for awhile.
All this while, the government has been harping on the ever growing divide between the have's and have not's and the sacred cow is that of some sort of welfare. This I will leave for another time.
The point I wanted to stress on was the point that much of the Singapore GDP is reliant on MNCs and GLCs and a few successful private enterprise. While GLCs are ever reliant to be anchored in Singapore, I can't say that much for MNCs. It is and will always be a business decision on whether to stay rooted in Singapore or to move to a lower cost country.
THe fallacy of the MNC approach and how it benefits the Singapore economy is that the MNC is, if you will, at the top of the food chain pyramid. In the second tier there are suppliers to these MNCs. Some of these will be MNCs themselves (ie, Applied Materials, KNS,etc) and some will be local players. Of late, we have been seeing the local suppliers having a good run on the SGX, like MMI and Jurong Tech, who supply to MNCs such as Seagate and Motorola.
What would happen if Seagate or Motorola were suddently up and relocation to another country? These companies would certainly have to move with them as their lifelines depend on the MNCs? And so what becomes of the Singapore economy? Jobs would naturally be lost and the impact would be felt on the lower income group people.
Instead, I think not enough attention has been put to develop our own companies that market to the world, instead of just to MNCs. These guys chase dollars whever the dollars may be. These guys bring Singapore's cutting edge to the world.
Prior to the bubble of 2000, there were dreams of making Singapore into another Silicon Valley with the TIF Venture FoF, etc etc. Lately it seems that it has all be quiet on this front. Even with the latest announcement by EDB on the Business Angels Scheme, I'm amazed at what is termed as business angels in this context.
THe manager of one such scheme has stated that he'd like to see some revenue as part of the consideration for investment. THen it defeats the purpose of angels as angels are people that entrepreneurs turn to when Venture Capitalists (VCs) fear to tread.
In Singapore, there is a lack of such risk taking angels, with most VCs preferring to invest in Series A or expansion stage companies. I know a friend who has tried to raise an early stage fund to no avail. There are some early stage VCs such as Upstream, but these are too few and far in between.
What is the use of spending all those billions of hard earned money on R&D where commercialization or future economic impact of these R&D projects are an afterthought? There are foreign VCs that specializes in helping technopreneurs develop their companies from such an early stage and I think there are opportunities for Singaporeans or locals to develop such a niche and prosper. But beware, it may take a few cycles of losing ones pants before striking it rich. And the investment value chain needs to be beefed up.
VCs tell me there is a dearth of good investible projects in Singapore, but as I see it, technopreneurs have a hard time getting into the radar scope of such VCs when they can't get access to early money.
TO be continued....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
