By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


"October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The other are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February."
- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar


There is no doubt that the stock market can be a very unforgiving institution but does the SEC's tactics if not self-described mandate of breaking the legs of Entrepreneurs and rolling over little Retail Investors make it any safer?

This is highly doubtful as the SEC has arguably become a poster child for the economic concept of regulatory capture, having moved from their initial role of investment information disclosure in the 1960's to their current role of supposedly "protecting investors" since the 1990's. There is also the issue that the existence of the SEC and what I term to be their "SEC-anointed" stocks injects moral hazard into the system.

But who, prey tell (spelled as intended), is the SEC protecting? 

Surely it isn't the little retail investor who has had to contend with the like of SEC-anointed fraud stocks and scammers like Enron, Global Crossing, the Steve Jobs Options Backdating Scandal and, of course, the Big Daddy himself, Bernie Madoff.

What's most amazing about Bernie Madoff's fraud is not just that he got away with it, but that the SEC had no intention of stopping him!

That may sound like an outlandish or unsubstantiated allegation until one considers the documented facts. Starting in 2000 then again in 2001, and 2005, a forensics accountant by the name of Harry M. Markopolos repeatedly notified the SEC of Bernie Madoff's fraud both verbally and in writing.  Markopolos provided detailed supporting documents only to be ignored by the SEC again and again.

Here is Markopolos' complaint to the SEC regarding Madoff where he identifies 29 Red Flags:

• The World's Biggest Hedge Fund Is A Fraud (slideshare)
  

Now it appears that the SEC is continuing their assault on both individual investors who want better returns than are available through the retail market or whom just want to invest their own money as they see fit (if they can blow their money in Vegas or on penny stocks, smokes or state sponsored lotteries why not stocks?) as well as entrepreneurs looking to raise funds for their companies.

The SEC is doing this by considering to raise the financial requirements for being designated an accredited investor. Currently, an individual accredited investor is defined as follows: 

1. a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person;



2. a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year; or

Apparently, too many Americans have now become cashed up and have too easily overcome this financial hurdle. In the last go round, the  SEC changed the rules so that an individual's home was excluded but apparently that wasn't enough to keep out the amount of new individuals looking to invest wholesale (as opposed to retail).

To remedy this our  "protectors", the SEC,  now want to index the SEC's individual accredited investor's  financial requirements to inflation. 

Here is a comparison of the current requirements and what the future requirements would mean:

An individual accredited investor is now defined as someone with $1 million in net worth, minus the value of their primary residence, or with annual income of $200,000 in each of the two most recent years and with a reasonable expectation to bring in the same income level in the current year..

The inflation indexed requirements would be about $2.5 million of individual net worth while the annual income requirement would rise to $450,000.

The SEC is offering some protection no doubt, but for whom? It seems this protection is more likely to benefit fraudsters and incumbent wholesale investors than entrepreneurs looking to raise money and the little retail investor.

http://m.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/05/20/more-than-half-of-angel-investors-could-be-barred.html

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


If it seems that we're under a constant barrage by the Western Media Myth (WMM) that (a) Japan is "failing" and that (b) this "failure" of Japan's is primarily due to Japan's "talent problem", it's because we are.

We're also told through this WMM that Japan's supposed "lack of talent" has further manifested itself in such as way as to be responsible for Japan's supposed "lack of creativity" and "lack of innovation", thus, contributing to again, the so-called "Lost Decade".

However, just when the WMM would have us give up all hope that Japan can saved, the WMM preaches that these "unique problems" that Japan faces can simply and quickly be solved by (a) increasing the number of English-speaking Japanese and (b) internationalizing the apparently "backwards" Japanese-only speaking speakers and/or (c)  increasing the number of immigrants  Japan accepts. Apparently, the WMM proponents believe that even a US-Open Border policy would "help" the Japanese economy if not "save" it.

To support such silly myths, memes and the previously proposed "solutions", the Western Media often holds up statistics showing Japan's lack of internationalized workers (however you define this), Japan's relatively low TOEIC and TOEFL scores compared to other Asian countries as well as the dearth of Japanese college students now studying overseas compared to the figures thrown up by countries such as India and China (for the record, the Japanese figures are low even when comparing this on a per capita basis, but this begs the question -- so what?).

As I have argued for over a decade now, these claims and even statistical comparisons by the Western Media are not only useless but downright dangerous to those that want to fully understand Japan's current situation as they ignore the real root causes of Japan's underperformance.

And note that I say "underperformance" here and not failure. As the third largest economy in the world (behind China that has ten times the population along with zero controls on economic externalities), it's pretty silly to continue to paint Japan as an economic basket case or the "sick man of Asia".

The key to all of this is to understand that Japan lacks leadership. That is what is hampering Japan.

Japan doesn't lack creativity, Japan doesn't lack innovation, Japan doesn't lack talent and Japan doesn't lack  English-speakers, although Japan could improve in all of these areas. 

The Western Media's arguments or framing of these issues, especially in terms of Japan's supposed lack of  "English-speaking" talent becomes even sillier when we consider that it ignores what I have deemed the "tip of the spear" or "tip of the sword" strategy.

As I have stated many time before, business is warfare, the only difference being that in business there is no Geneva Convention and prisoners aren't routinely taken.

In a war, it is considered completely unwise to judge the strength of an army solely by the total number of troops. One must judge an army by its effectiveness in killing and maiming people as well as smashing, burning and breaking things. One would also be well advised to measure an army's effectiveness in terms of its ability to project power. Again, the number of troops is mostly irrelevant.

This becomes even clearer when we analyze a war dominated by air power,

In such a case you don't measure a military's effectiveness by the number of pilots deployed in theater or even the total trained (and active) pilots but rather you measure a military's effectiveness (related to these air campaigns) by the efficacy of the pilots that are deployed and the results which they attain.

For instance, even on a conventional basis, one pilot and perhaps one navigator can wreak enormous havoc on an enemy force, and yet, this one pilot and navigator are backed up by thousands of others ranging from ground crews that handle maintenance, fueling and ordnance. Air traffic controllers to mid-air refuelers (who in turn are supported by their own ground crews) and this ripples through the entire supply chain from the men and women who cut the paychecks, the cooks, the water purification teams, the truckers, the doctors and dentists to the nurses and so on. 

Thousands and thousands of non-combatants are involved to support a relatively small group of pilots and this doesn't even include all of the time and effort that went into designing and producing each plane and each weapons systems, all to support one pilot and perhaps one navigator.

And yet it works because that plane and that pilot are, indeed, the tip of the spear.

You can see this as well in a US Navy Carrier Task Force when you consider how many personnel are on one aircraft carrier -- mutiple thousands. And this one carrier in turn supports a relatively small group of pilots. But it goes far beyond this, because that one aircraft carrier is in turn supported by a group of other ships - submarines, cruisers, destroyers and so on.

All of these assets and personnel are supporting this one aircraft carrier which in turn supports her air crews who are, by definition, the tip of the spear.

Unsurprisingly, businesses and economies work in the same way. This should be common sense and yet evidently the Western Media still doesn't get this nor does most of the Silicon Valley "Cheerleader Press".

In concrete terms, what does this mean for Japan?

Well, this means that in Japan not every person or employee needs to speak English or be internationalized. It's a silly notion to assume that they do. Moreover, even if each Japanese worker did have these skills there is no guarantee that the Japanese economy would stronger since there is a huge opportunity cost to skill-up in these areas which could, in fact, dampen Japanese creativity, innovation and productivity.

In any event, today I was back on site at a client (a Japanese domestic firm), running interviews for 2015 college graduates. I had eleven Japanese and several foreign student candidates lined up for today. This was in addition to the 15 Japanese candidates I had interviewed for the same client the week before.

And once again, I am and have been extremely impressed with the quality of all candidates, both Japanese and foreign candidates.

This simply adds more empirical evidence to my long made argument that Japan doesn't suffer from a lack of talent, creativity or innovation.

No. 

Japan suffers not just from a lack of but a dearth of aggressive, quality leadership which is able to effectively and profitably deploy and monetize the outstanding domestic and international talent that is already onboard or can be readily acquired.

To counter balance this lack of leadership and the resultant underperforming or ossified firms it produces, Japan must create and maintain a very healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem.

An ecosystem that can continually challenge, engage, kill and compost underperforming  incumbent Japanese corporations, especially ossified incumbents, wherever they may be found.


Related Background Articles:

• Japan's Problem: Severe Lack Of Leadership Not A Lack Of Innovation Or Creativity (Full Interview) (The Globe & Mail)
  
• The Truth About Japan: Can Japan's New Startup Spirit Revitalize The Japanese Economy?
  
• Can Japan Compete Globally? You Betcha And Here's Why
  
• Japan May Be Able To Compete Globally But Not Yet
  
• Can Japan Compete Globally? You Betcha And Here's How
  

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge

One of the frequent topics we discuss besides the myth and meme that "Necessity Is the Mother of All Invention" is the fact many of Silicon Valley's most vaunted startups are all post-tech businesses. 

Yes, you read that right. Post-tech.

They surely use technology in their day-to-day operations just as UPS does, the Hilton hotel chain or even Walmart. However, many of these startups may actually use even less tech than these brick and mortar firms. Examples of such startups and ventures include Airbnb, Uber and Zappos which is analogous to an online Nordstrom in terms of the customer service experience.

What does all this mean?

As we've discussed many times before, this means that what many of these startups will face (are facing) as their primary challenge is human in nature not technical.

Specifically, the markets that post-tech startups will want or tend to target or those which are massively inefficient (and have huge profit potential with tepid or ossified competition) due to the use of regulatory capture by rent-seeking incumbents.

The transportation industry is a perfect example of this as seen in the TechCrunch article below (although the writer seems oblivious to what this term or concept) whereby these rent seeking incumbents are using regulatory capture to have the French government force more efficient and consumer desired transportation services to artificially extend customer wait times by 15 minutes (apparently the average wait time for some of these alternative car services is only 7 minutes).

You can't make this up. But it is should be expected, not just in the tech world but especially the post-tech world.


Uber, LeCab And Others Now Have To Wait 15 Minutes Before Picking You Up In France
Posted by Romain Dillet (@romaindillet)

At first, it was just an idea, but this bill is now very real — urban transportation services like Uber and LeCab will now have to wait 15 minutes in France before letting a customer in the car. Back in October, the French government mentioned this piece of legislation as these new services would hurt traditional cab drivers. But nothing was set in stone until the AFP spotted the new bill today — and this news comes as a surprise.

In France, you have to pay a hefty price to get your taxi license. As a payback, the taxi industry is very regulated in this country, and drivers can expect to get a healthy influx of clients.

Yet, when the young and fearless startups appeared, many taxi drivers protested against LeCab, Chauffeur-privé, SnapCar, Allocab, Voitures Jaunes and Uber. While the French law calls these companies “VTC” services (car services), taxi drivers think that they are direct competitors — and smartphones certainly make Uber and others act like taxi services. That’s why the government sided with taxi drivers and talked about creating the 15-minute rule.

Shortly after that, Allocab, Chauffeur-privé, LeCab and SnapCar put together an online petition against the project. Then, nothing happened. It was like the government had forgotten about this idea.

In November, French heavyweight LeCab raised $6.8 million (€5 million) in Series B funding. At the time, I wrote that it was “a good time for it to raise” with the impending changes.

Last week, the Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence) even wrote that the 15-minute delay was a bad idea.

“This competitive imbalance is not necessary to protect the taxi monopoly on this market. Moreover, it potentially contradicts the objective to improve free traffic flow,” the report says.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge

Given the current media frenzy of "everything Bitcoin" (BC) you probably would've had to have been living under a rock to not have heard about it.

Along with this attention there's been no shortage of proponents as well as detractors. Many detractors have pointed to some of the weaknesses or flaws they see or have purportedly been found in Bitcoin.

While there are certainly many things to be sorted out regarding Bitcoin it always seems that whenever something new comes about there are immediate detractors telling you that this or that is the new shiny thing's "achilles heel" and with Bitcoin it is no different.

Specifically, I'm referring to Bitcoin: What You're Not Being Told which suggests that the blockchain is BC's achille's heel.  

As usual, this type of doom and gloom usually never comes to pass as the world is dripping with intelligence and ingenuity.  We've seen this with the Y2K situation and numerous others. This isn't to say that detractors aren't valuable, because they are. And very often it is only because of their efforts and concerns that issue or problems come to light and are addressed.

So for that we are very thankful.

But back to the BC's blockchain and the doom and gloom surrounding it. Once upon a time, there were any number of people telling us that the internet was doomed because of the perceived lack of bandwidth (remember those silly "conserve bandwidth" sig lines?) -- that the internet would collapse upon itself. Yet technology and the market place rode to the rescue and we now can download huge video files at the click of a mouse button or watch streaming media on our smart phones very minimal, if any, latency and all for peanuts.

More analogous to the BC blockchain concerns is the limited addressable space provided by IPv4 with IPv4 being 32 bits in length and providing approximately 4.3 billion IP addresses. I first heard concerns about this back around 1995 in tech circles and perhaps in the late 1990's it began to hit the mainstream or at least business press.

And yet this hasn't stopped the internet from growing even though we have more and more devices connected by the minute -- just off the top of my head, we have about 10 devices connected. Perhaps more.

So what gives?

Well, as a short term solution, the NAT protocol was developed and introduced as well as dynamically assigned (recycled) IP addresses. And eventually, we've come to see IPv6 being implemented as more robust solution (of course, IPv6 offers many other benefits, the massively enlarged address space being just one and perhaps the most obvious). 

IPv6 implementation has been slow as it's had to contend with both cost and compatibility issues (i.e., you may need something like NAT64, as IPv4 / v6 are not compatible). But it works (as far as I know -- techies, correct me if I'm wrong).

Most importantly, though, IPv6 is 128 bits in length which yields about 340 trillion trillion trillion addresses.

Not bad  - that'll support a lot of devices and objects to be sure.

So what can be done about the current and projected length and subsequent weight of blockchains? One possibility is Blockchain pruning but as there are some extremely smart people out there, certainly other solutions will arise to fill this and other needs and issues as they arise.

And given other uncertainties about BC, surely this issue of "blockchain weight and length" will be seen to have been a trivial bump in the road for BC.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


One of the frequent topics I like to discuss besides the myth and meme that "Necessity Is the Mother of All Invention" is the fact many of Silicon Valley's most vaunted startups are all post-tech businesses. 

Yes, you read that right. Post-tech.

They surely use technology in their day-to-day operations just as UPS does, the Hilton hotel chain or even Walmart. However, many of these startups may actually use even less tech than these brick and mortar firms. Examples of such startups and ventures that are post tech include Airbnb, Uber and Zappos which is analogous to an online Nordstrom in terms of the excellent customer service experience they provide. Further, the technology required to run these companies is often available right of the shelf for a pittance (relatively speaking). There are plenty of other non-Valley, post-tech companies such as Groupon, Gilt Groupe and Dollar Shave Club to name just a few.

What does all this mean?

As we've discussed many times before, this means that what many of these startups are facing (or will face) as their primary challenge is primarily human in nature not technical.

Specifically, the markets that post-tech startups will want to or tend to target are those which are massively inefficient (thus, having huge profit potential while populated with tepid or ossified competitors) due to the use of regulatory capture by rent-seeking incumbents.

Over the last 18 to 20 years (and especially during the last 7 years) the skills and knowledge needed to quickly and cost effectively build, mass produce and even consume these technologies and tools have now become almost completely common place.  Consider that the amount of computing power (and bandwidth) we have in our smart phones to a person 10 years ago as is the ability to buy right off the shelf most of the things we need to create just about any product or business. 

We're no longer concerned with the theory behind building a router or the design and development of packet switched (versus a circuit based networks).  Even IPTV is no longer a hazy dream but a daily reality. 

I could go on and on, but I won't so as not to bore you.

Beyond core technology, the Valley has now grown and matured in regards to the knowledge, processes, skills and resources needed to not only build a product but to launch a company and to make it successful (although, often times, the Valley still struggles greatly with market-based productization and ultimately the monetization off the product. These two sticking points, therefore, provide huge opportunities for the next generation of entrepreneurs to focus on).

For me, I'm glad I lived in the Valley and still do business there. It was a very huge turning point and chapter in my life, however, for many reasons, not everyone can get there, at least now. 

Yet they worry and fret. Don't.

My advice, is don't worry or fret, do the best you can, with what you have, where you are. If the Valley is in your future you'll be there. And beyond that, there is a downside to the Valley -- too many posers, Drive-by entrepreneurs, Lottery Ticket Louts and so forth attending events and conferences rather than staying home or at the office building product or businesses. Better yet, spending the time getting in front of customers. The point is the Valley is a huge echo-chamber where luck and one-trick ponies are seen as "systems", "processes" and "truths" and where almost no one I have met can separate talent from systems, brand and product.

That's the downside. A major downside.

The upside is that even if you aren't in the Valley, you can still read and see what's going on, in real time, without being pulled into the Valley echo-chamber and backslapping "ataboys" that are often made with good intentions but damage companies and entrepreneurs in the long run.

The glorious fact, and I do say glorious,  is that now with all of the knowledge, mentors, books, forms, templates and so on I question this "race to setup in the Valley"  Further, we should consider and clearly understand that most of the "tech pain" and "tech risk" has been taken entirely out of the startup equation. 

To summarize, in effect, so many of these startups are post-tech. They surely use tech in their daily business or operations just like KFC, Burger King and UPS does but they aren't tech firms. This doesn't make them better or worse than any startup. But it does mean they should acknowledge this new reality as should every startups, potential entrepreneur as well as incumbent.

By James Santagata
Principal Consultant, SiliconEdge


Outside of questions pertaining to SiliconEdge's training and coaching services, two of the most common questions people ask us have to do with our company name. 

Is there a particular meaning attached to the name? And if so, what is the philosophy behind it?

Simply stated SiliconEdge represents two concepts.

First, it represents the physical edge of Silicon Valley -- the millions and millions of miles of inhabited space where entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial skills and knowledge have been rapidly diffusing or have already diffused and the exciting innovation and creativity that have been taking place or are about to take place outside of the Valley as well as outside of the United States.

Second, and mostly importantly, if we accept Silicon Valley to be the mecca of technology, creativity, innovation and risk taking,  then this "edge" is the next step, the next evolution of this mecca; not a physical edge but a philosophical edge.

To me, it's been very clear that this next evolutionary step is a philosophical shift in recognizing and optimizing the human element and the strategic element and nowhere will this become more true and more important than in the Valley which is increasing becoming a "post-tech" world although very few seem aware of this fact. This shift means that business and people will soon need to recognize that most of the problems they face are not technical or financial in nature but human (we address this in great detail).

To be sure, the intrinsic importance and value of the human element is not new and it has always been of critical importance even when it has gone unrecognized. And due to a number of factors the actual importance of the human element has often been masked, misinterpreted and even when it's been recognized the response has often been to simply address it  with platitudes.

A common example of this is found in the expression, "Necessity is the mother of all invention". 

Is this really the case? We think not.

To us, this human element relates to being able to most effectively and efficiently select, acquire, develop, deploy, motivate, manage and retain the right people necessary for your business to reach or exceed its objectives and goals as well as ensuring your continued competitiveness and viability in the fast moving, global business environment that is today's reality. 

More specifically, the concrete skill sets that now provide the largest  ROI and ROL for companies (and individuals) include:

1. Leadership
2. Communication
3. Influencing
4. Persuasion
5. Negotiation
6. Assertivenesss

Beyond this human element, the essence and philosophy of SiliconEdge is to always question the official narrative as to why a particular person, company, product or strategy was "successful" or "failed" and to identify and unpack the most powerful myths and memes to find the real lessons to be learned.