BNN Network interview with the management of McKinsey

Yesterday, there was an interview at BNN Network with Dominic Barton who is Canadian and the Global Managing Director of McKinsey. Among others, he argues that Canada exports not enough in China and Asia in general. There are many opportunities such as in education, a 2% increase in higher education in China would require 2000 more universities...

For the whole interview you can watch:
http://www.bnn.ca

It would be available in the coming days.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

Tech bubble version 2.0, what have we learned from the krash of 2001?

It is widely known that the main reason behind the stock krash of 2001 was the lack of sound business models supporting the growth of tech, and mostly Internet stocks. In 1999 and 2000 any company with the name ".com" in it, got premium valuation on the stock exchanges. My ex-boss made a fortune with Year 2000 computing conversion systems (Y2K). It appeared a scam, nothing happened except on 2-3 elevators on the planet on January 1, 2000. My ex-boss diversified by acquiring 50 tech firms in unrelated computing sectors. He had no decent business model. The stock went to $60 to $3 and was acquired around $4.75 around 2002. During the tech bubble, most of the stocks, even the poorly managed, got huge market upside. It was easy to buy new firms with stocks with huge paper value and almost no cash. Due diligence was often discarded for "instincts". Because a target offered the ex-boss $6 per share for his firm, he thought that offering him $4.75 per share right away was a good idea. The owner of the target declined. With the help of the CFO I found with some basic financial analysis that the financial projections from the firm (so truely over-optimistic) gave a valuation below $1 per share. In fact the firm with a ".com" in the name went bankrupt 2 years later.

The tech firms which passed through the deep recession of 2001-2002 were the ones with the strong business models. Amazon with its e-commerce powerhouse evolved into a cloud-computing powerhouse and with high digital sales. eBay prospered as an electronic exchange. Pets.com went bankrupt with no decent business model. Several telecom Competitive Exchange Locals Carriers (CLEC) went bankrupt in Canada and USA because they had a me-too business model with no real strategic sustainable advantage. The same thing is happenning right now with "me-too" Groupon competitors.

For more analysis on the need for a strong business model you can read in the coming months the chapter : "Rethinking North American telephony business models in the age of turbulence" in the book "Telecommunications: Regulations, Technology and Economics" by Nova Science Publishers.
Authors: Louis Rhéaume, TELUQ-UQAM and Dr. Yves Rabeau, UQAM.
www.novapublishers.com

Bloomberg made a good point that in social networks there is a big Internet bubble emerging with high valuations such as Facebook, Zynga, Groupon and Twitter. The one with the weakest business model is Twitter, which is still experimenting with a coherent business model.



Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

The 100 best 2011 tech investors according to Forbes

Here are the 100 best 2011 tech investors according to Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/midas/2011/midas-list-complete-list.html

BROWSE THE LIST
Rank
Name
Firm
Investment Focus
1
Jim Breyer
Accel Partners Technology
2
Michael Moritz
Sequoia Capital Technology
3
Reid Hoffman
Greylock Partners Technology
4
Peter Fenton
Benchmark Capital Technology
5
Scott Sandell
New Enterprise Associates Technology
6
Kevin Efrusy
Accel Partners Technology
7
Peter Thiel
Founders Fund Technology
8
Peter Barris
New Enterprise Associates Technology
9
David Sze
Greylock Partners Technology
10
Marc Andreessen
Andreessen Horowitz Technology
11
Douglas Leone
Sequoia Capital Technology
12
Fred Wilson
Union Square Ventures Technology
13
Ron Conway
SV Angel Technology
14
John Doerr
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Technology
15
Aneel Bhusri
Greylock Partners Technology
16
Bryan Roberts
Venrock Life Sciences
17
Mike Maples
FLOODGATE Technology
18
Josh Kopelman
First Round Capital Technology
19
Jeff Brody
Redpoint Ventures Technology
20
Jeremy Levine
Bessemer Venture Partners Technology
21
Harry Weller
New Enterprise Associates Technology
22
David Skok
Matrix Partners Technology
23
Ross Jaffe
Versant Ventures Life Sciences
24
Jay Hoag
Technology Crossover Ventures Technology
25
Yuri Milner
Digital Sky Technologies Technology
26
Rob Chandra
Bessemer Venture Partners Technology
27
Kevin Harvey
Benchmark Capital Technology
28
Todd Chaffee
Institutional Venture Partners Technology
29
Terry McGuire
Polaris Venture Partners Life Sciences
30
Paul Madera
Meritech Capital Partners Technology
31
David Cowan
Bessemer Venture Partners Technology
32
Jim White
Sutter Hill Ventures Technology
33
Roger Lee
Battery Ventures Technology
34
Sean Dalton
Highland Capital Partners Technology
35
Bing Gordon
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Technology
36
Antoine Papiernik
Sofinnova Partners Life Sciences
37
Jim Boettcher
Focus Ventures Technology
38
Sandy Miller
Institutional Venture Partners Technology
39
John Freund
Skyline Ventures Life Sciences
40
Rob Ward
Meritech Capital Partners Technology
41
Woody Marshall
Technology Crossover Ventures Technology
42
Joel Cutler
General Catalyst Technology
43
Tom Banahan
Tenaya Capital Technology
44
George Bischof
Meritech Capital Partners Technology
45
Peter Wagner
(Formerly) Accel Partners Technology
46
Kevin McQuillan
Focus Ventures Technology
47
Bob Goodman
Bessemer Venture Partners Technology
48
George Zachary
Charles River Ventures Technology
49
Sunil Dhaliwal
Battery Ventures Technology
50
Greg Gretsch
Sigma Partners Technology
51
Neeraj Agrawal
Battery Ventures Technology
52
Adam Grosser
Silver Lake Technology
53
Rich Levandov
Avalon Ventures Technology
54
Brian Paul
Tenaya Capital Technology
55
Michael Cline
Accretive Technology Partners Technology
56
Glenn Solomon
GGV Capital Technology
57
Chris Gabrieli
Bessemer Venture Partners Life Sciences
58
Jim Goetz
Sequoia Capital Technology
59
Danny Rimer
Index Ventures Technology
60
Jeremy Liew
Lightspeed Venture Partners Technology
61
Jeff Horing
Insight Venture Partners Technology
62
John Walecka
Redpoint Ventures Technology
63
Bruce Golden
Accel Partners Technology
64
Ben Nye
Bain Capital Ventures Technology
65
Bruce Sachs
Charles River Ventures Technology
66
Nicholas Galakatos
Clarus Ventures Life Sciences
67
Ed Anderson
North Bridge Venture Partners Technology
68
Chris Schaepe
Lightspeed Venture Partners Technology
69
Steve Jurvetson
Draper Fisher Jurvetson Technology
70
Ken DeAngelis
Austin Ventures Technology
71
Vinod Khosla
Khosla Ventures Technology
72
Mike Gordon
Meritech Capital Partners Technology
73
David Weiden
Khosla Ventures Technology
74
Greg McAdoo
Sequoia Capital Technology
75
Matt McIlwain
Madrona Venture Group Technology
76
Mike Carusi
Advanced Technology Ventures Life Sciences
77
Deborah Farrington
StarVest Technology
78
Howard Hartenbaum
August Capital Technology
79
Tim Barrows
Matrix Partners Technology
80
Bill Link
Versant Ventures Life Sciences
81
Sameer Gandhi
Accel Partners Technology
82
Chris Sacca
Lowercase Capital Technology
83
George Still
Norwest Venture Partners Technology
84
James Blair
Domain Associates Life Sciences
85
Ted Schlein
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Technology
86
Michael Krupka
Bain Capital Ventures Technology
87
Tim Chang
Norwest Venture Partners Technology
88
Rich Wong
Accel Partners Technology
89
Ed Hurwitz
Alta Partners Life Sciences
90
Geoff Yang
Redpoint Ventures Technology
91
James Topper
Frazier Healthcare Life Sciences
92
Amir Nashat
Polaris Venture Partners Life Sciences
93
Theresia Gouw Ranzetta
Accel Partners Technology
94
John Moragne
Trident Capital Technology
95
Jim Wade
M/C Venture Partners Technology
96
Harry Hopper
Columbia Capital Technology
97
Anders Hove
Venrock Life Sciences
98
Brian Ascher
Venrock Technology
99
Bijan Sabet
Spark Capital Technology
100
Brad Feld
Foundry Group Technology

While there are many popular names, several new names are appearing.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

An interesting article about the need for new business models

There was an interesting article in VentureBeat by the former president of Newsweek about the need for new business models.

http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/12/how-to-start-a-business-that-defies-traditional-models/

Here are some advices:

Don’t assume that a new model is the only way to go – Be sure your company actually needs, or would benefit from, a new business model. Even in a changing environment, your business opportunities may be served better by altering an existing model.

Don’t overestimate the changes – Change happens incrementally, so even though you may be moving in a new direction, your model still needs to be anchored historically.

Don’t allow “trying for great” to destroy the good – Just because you are building a new model, focus on the low-hanging fruit before shooting for the stars. Many of the first iPad apps, for example, were dizzyingly digital but slow to download and hard to use. Sales dropped dramatically after the initial excitement as a result.

Build flexibility into your model – It’s always good, for example, to overestimate the time it will take to achieve your goals. Like software, it always takes longer and costs more than anyone could have imagined at the beginning.

Expect competition – If you are going to eat your competitors’ lunch, they will notice – and will try very hard to prevent you from doing so. Build competitive response into your model.

Finally, ignore the critics. There will always be someone who doesn’t understand what you are doing, or doesn’t want to understand. But, they will have an opinion. Once you have launched your plan, stick with it until you know it is working or it just cannot work. Don’t give up too soon.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

Les raisons principales pourquoi les gens utilisent un iPad

Voici les raisons principales pourquoi les gens utilisent un iPad ou autre "tablets".

Les jeux vidéo sont la principale activité des usagers de "tablets" selon AdMob.

Le sondage de 1400 usagers au États-Unis, rapporte que 84% des usagers jouent aux jeux, 78% l'utilisent pour la recherche, 74% pour le courriel, 61% pour les nouvelles, 56% pour les réseaux sociaux, 515 pour la musique ou les vidéos, 465 pour lire des livres numériques, 42% pour faire du shopping en ligne .

59% des usagers passent plus de temps sur un "tablet" que de lire un livre papier. 52% écoute la radio, 43% utilise plus un portatif ou un ordinateur desktop, 41% utilise plus un téléphone intelligent et 34% regarde plus la tv.

Le sondage a trouvé que 38% des usagers passent plus de 2 heures par jour à utiliser leur "tablet" et 30% plus de 2 heures. Pour 28% des usagers, le "tablet" représente leur ordinateur principal.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

10 of the most likely acquirers in infocom

These 10 infocom companies have the most cash in their reserve:

10. IBM: $10.7 billion
9. Oracle: $11.9 billion
8. Dell: $14.4 billion
7. Nintendo: $15.1 billion
6. Intel: $16.8 billion
5. Apple: $27.0 billion
4. Google: $35.0 billion
3. Cisco: $40.2 billion
2. Microsoft: $41.3 billion
1. China Mobile: $44.5 billion

They are the most likely firms in infocom to make acquisitions.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com