Yeah, I read Tom Friedman’s NYTimes article over the weekend. Granted, I was sitting in the backseat of our car coming home from RTP trying to get my 8 month old to take a nap, but I did read it. I thought the Twitter traffic over the weekend and several other posts around the topic were interesting in that some people took Friedman’s thoughts literally and others took them to represent a few larger points. Here is my basic POV on what I took as Friedman’s larger points:
- Stop throwing taxpayer money down the drain - stop wasting tax dollars by giving it to a domestic auto industry that is dying. Here in the South, we lived through the death of the domestic textiles industry – the result was capital shifting to other industries and a resurgence of a new textiles industry based on real comparative advantage. The auto industry needs to die a controlled death and come back in a different form, a more competitive form.
- Plow money into VCs who know how to invest in growth industries – not sure if he was serious about this point or not but I think the larger issue is that government should be removing the friction from the start-up ecosystem. So, a few important steps toward that end:
- The President needs to kill the idea that carried interest should be taxed as regular income. That reduces the incentive for VCs to make big, interesting bets.
- State pension funds allocating money toward alternative investments should push some of it toward local or regional funds and make a condition that some of that money be invested inside the state. This provides for a potential double return for the state – good upside for the pensioners and an investment in high wage jobs inside the state.
- Get creative about other interesting tax incentives at the federal level for companies getting started in the industries that Friedman points to – CleanTech, General Technology, Health Care IT, etc.
- America needs to get back to thriving, not just surviving – this is maybe the most important point in the article. Friedman is 100% right here – we are so focused (with the recent stimulus and our political discourse) on saving the past that we are failing to see this as an opportunity to build a new future. When so many things are so broken at the same time, it’s a chance to clear away all of the old thinking; it’s a time to renew. I see America as a desperate, out of work, middle-aged, overweight man (who wasn’t always that way) looking in the mirror – the road he’s on is a dead end. He can’t just change one or two things, he has to overhaul his life. He’s gotta stop drinking so much, he’s gotta stop eating pizza every night, he needs to get on the treadmill more than once a year, he needs to quit smoking once and for all, he needs to spend more time with his kids, he needs to pray more, and he needs to pick himself up and get back in the game. The cycle of trying to make the old ways work, believing that everything will eventually work out – that’s a losing strategy. He knows it, and he knows that an overhaul will pay huge dividends, it’s just hard to take that first step.
And so, I take Friedman’s thoughts as a more complex editorial about the test we face as a nation – will we solve this problem using the best things, the rare things that are uniquely American and uniquely at our disposal, or will we retreat into the old ways of thinking? Thinking that says government can solve our problems, it’s not our fault, we’ve just gotta save this industry or that industry… that’s the thinking of failed, less relevant economies in the Old World. I hope we ultimately choose the road less traveled – the one that faces these challenges with courage and new thinking and sees an opportunity to come out of this mess in a stronger position. That’s the America I know!
Stay tuned…
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Paul Freet 02.23.09 at 11:30 am
Greg, thanks for the link to Thomas article and your thoughtful response to it. I had a couple of questions/points.
How does the tax on carried interest affect your investment decision making? What is the mechanism by which you make big interesting bets that you would have made otherwise if the tax rate on your gains was different? Shouldn’t your strategy be the same for your LPs regardless of your personal tax implications?
Second, no matter how much is invested on the front end, if there are no exit opportunities, it is like pushing a string. We have to get the IPO pipeline opened again. And reworking SOX would be a great place to start.
Thanks again for the article, your response and your great involvement in the Atlanta startup community.
Andre Kearns 02.23.09 at 11:30 am
Greg,
Good stuff! My take was he was saying IF you are considering doing 1 (bailout pt 2), then do 2 instead. At this point, I don’t think we should do either. My reaction was also to question his assertion that VC’s “need more cash”????
Also, I wouldn’t lump the bailout with the stimulus. Granted, both could be viewed as tourniquets to stop the economic bleeding, but the bailout purely (and perhaps misguidedly) so, and the stimulus coming closer to getting us to look to and invest in things new i.e. technology, alternative energy, etc.
Andre Kearns 02.23.09 at 11:32 am
Greg,
Good stuff! My take was he was saying IF you are considering doing 1 (bailout pt 2), then do 2 instead. At this point, I don’t think we should do either. My reaction was also to question his assertion that VC’s “need more cash”????
Also, I wouldn’t lump the bailout with the stimulus. Granted, both could be viewed as tourniquets to stop the economic bleeding, but the bailout purely (and perhaps misguidedly) so, and the stimulus coming closer to getting us invest in things new i.e. technology, alternative energy, etc. Ultimate reinvention will not come from the government, nor will it come quickly. Question is can government play a role in stopping the bleeding in the immeidate term, and sparking some initial opportunities that the private sector can grow in the longer term.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mark Schultz 02.23.09 at 12:19 pm
The scenario you describe is exactly the reason great companies / industries / countries fall from the top of the ladder and are replaced by newer, better ones. They do not have the ability, foresight or willingness (or some combination of all three) to change and make themselves obsolete today in order to have a better tomorrow. They are too busy holding on to the old way of doing things and as you say, it is too hard and painful to take the first steps.
Those of us that work in the technology business are better able to see this and actually do it because things change so much in our industry that is really is a matter of survival if you are going to have a long lasting career.
Hopefully, we as a nation will have the foresight to endure some short term pain for the needed long term changes.
Greg Foster 02.23.09 at 12:59 pm
Paul - great questions, and yes, getting SOX fixed and getting the IPO market back are crucial. More detail on my thoughts on carried interest - I think my real point is that both LPs and the larger economy wants/needs early stage VCs to be properly incented to find the next Google or Apple. If you tax carried interest as regular income, the management fee that VCs get paid looks identical to the carried interest they get if deals do well - VCs then raise bigger funds to increase their mgt fees and tend to make safer bets in order to ensure a base return so that they can get that next fund raised. You want that VC GP to be hungry to get that big return - that really pushes them to work hard to find the next big thing.
Greg Foster 02.23.09 at 1:03 pm
Andre - I agree. I’m just hoping that in this next round of potential bailout for the auto industry that we think long term. I would rather spend $20 B to retrain the work force of Flint and Detroit - get them ready to start building something new or doing something new…
Andy Louis-Charles 02.23.09 at 4:56 pm
I am enjoying all the discussions on this topic. The one point I have is the VC / entrepreneur community has been relatively silent on the public policy front. While the NVCA has a number of “open letters” which state general policy desires, I believe the venture capital community must become more vocal. Entrepreneurs must become more vocal. I am in the process of writing a Motley Fool article on the topic and I welcome your input.
Pete 02.23.09 at 8:30 pm
Greg,
Great response to the op-ed. I thought other VC’s/writers were too busy slamming the specifics to see the spirit of the piece.
Thanks for the positive approach.