Yesterday's wealth is no guarantee of tomorrow's success

Search the phrase “sudden wealth syndrome” in Google and you'll find thousands of Web pages replete with tales of lottery winners, women who married wealthy men, and successful entrepreneurs who all have one thing in common: 

They can't handle their new riches.

It's almost become a truism that those who find themselves with a sudden windfall will blow it. In fact, the chance that a wealthy family will still be wealthy three generations down the line is less than one in 10. Experts who deal with such families say it's true that the chips are stacked against them.

“Yesterday's wealth is no guarantee of tomorrow's success,” said Sarah Bull, a principal and member of the KJH Private Services team at KJ Harrison & Partners Inc. in Toronto. “When people receive wealth for the first time they don't really know how to handle it. There are often emotional issues around handling it, and they don't know how to spend responsibly, and they don't understand the math.”

A growing body of evidence points to disturbingly low levels of financial literacy among Canadians, and one of the symptoms is the spending habits of the nouveau riche. A study released this month by research firm TNS found that only 13 per cent of Canadians could answer three basic risk-literacy questions correctly, and suggested that most consumers have very little grasp of the basic principles of financial risk.

It asked participants to assess the relative payout of two lotteries; the relative risk and returns from two investment funds; and the relative risk of investing in a single stock versus a basket of stocks. Sixteen per cent of Canadian men and 9 per cent of women answered all of the questions correctly. Those who had attended university fared better than those who hadn't, but both groups had dismal results.Read more 

Jacoline Loewen, finance expert, Author of Money Magnet: Attracting Investors to Your Business.

Private equity may like a GST tax

Another big 2010 surprise could be the U.S. dollar rebounding exceptionally strongly (even if temporarily) along with the economy.  In this event, the international contribution to multinational profits would slow, but any such shortfall would then be more than made good on the home front. Private equity would have to take this into consideration as they nurse their portfolio companies back to some semblance of health.

A further consequence of a rebounding U.S. dollar could be the price of gold and gold shares both taking a beating - what a non-consensus surprise that would be!

However, even given an exceptionally strong recovery, I still can’t see the U.S. outgrowing its intractable debt and deficit problems without something big having to give.  And, facing the hard fiscal choices that lie ahead, there could very likely be the temptation of expediently continuing stimulus and debt and deficit policies for that much longer.  Repaying ballooning sovereign debts in depreciating currencies would be another expedient way out.  These are why the risks of returning inflation must continue to loom large.

But what if these risks were to be headed off by a debt-hammered U.S. electorate being sold on a Canadian-style GST consumer tax? 

I’ll leave readers to calculate by how much a 5% tax on $10 trillion of annual consumption would reduce those gargantuan annual deficits.  It might not herald a new “Morning in America”, but investors and stock markets would rejoice the world over.

Private equity may be surprised by America's growth rate

An American Private Equity fund manager told me they are sitting under their desks and rocking back and forward gently, trying to get through this market. I reminded her that the British Empire took about 100 years to decline and the American Empire may be "lite", but the mother land, so to speak, still is a great market. America is still a good place to make money for private equity funds.

China has been attractive for its strong growth and America's growth is being ignored. One exponential non-consensus surprise would be a beleaguered U.S. economy delivering far-stronger post-stimulus GDP growth than expected in 2010.  And maybe even blowing the lights out with an explosive annual growth of 5.0% or better over the next two years, compared with consensus forecasts of 2.5% to 3.5%.

The U.S. has always been an irrepressible economy with impressive resilience.   It remains the undisputed world leader in productivity, in which there is every likelihood of an astounding further recession-induced pick-up.  Helped by a much cheaper dollar, the U.S. is also among the world’s most competitive economies and largest exporters of higher-end goods and services. 

If there are going to be the positive surprises in global economic growth that the IMF and World Bank have begun hinting at, these surprises would more than likely give an added leg-up to an ever-cheaper and more productive America?   I keep thinking of Noel Coward’s ditty: “I like America, America’s OK; I like America, give me the U.S.A.”

Ivey Business Plan competition shows that investors like female businesses

Rick Spence captured the comments given at the Women Entrepreneurs of Canada conference (WEC, is run by Carrisa Reiniger) and one thought was that male investors do not get women's businesses and do not invest. I have personal experience that shows me that assumption is so 90's, but no long relevant in 2010. In fact, Loewen & Partners raised capital for the female led day care firm, Kids & Co, and it does not get more estrogen laden than that. I did notice at the time that the male investors did not even twitch an eyebrow at gender or business focus. After all, as one of the male fund managers said to me on my question about the relevance of gender, "Lululemon is one of the biggest Canadian private equity success stories out there and it is a female product company."
I wrote a letter to the National Post to comment because, honestly, it bothers me when entrepreneurs hid behind some "victim" stereotype instead of facing their brutal facts that they are not clicking with investors because their business is simply not sustainable. If these female entrepreneurs faced the brutal truth, they would be able to adapt all the sooner and go on to get the money they deserve.
For full article: http://bit.ly/whogetsvcmoneymore

Reluctant Partners, Feb. 1.

At the start-up stage, if you look at the Ivey Business Plan competition, for the past two out of three years, a female lead team won. This competition is judged by Bay Street's toughest investors. A female team that did not make it to the finals, Peer-FX, went on Dragons Den and won a deal. That female leader is still in business because she is good at what she does. I wrote an article at the time and asked her about being female in business. I was not surprised when she said it is just not part of her thinking.

Whether you have a uterus or testicles, investors want to know how much money you will make, when will they get their money back and will it be more than if they put it in a blue chip stock in the stock market? If you can show you can give that potential, you will attract investors. End of story.

Barbara Orser, professor at Carlton, has done research to back up these points and says only entrepreneurs who start robust, high potential businesses will get the money.

I do agree that it would be good for women to network and support each other more.

Jacoline Loewen, Loewen & Partners Inc., Toronto

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2538961#email#ixzz0f9NoetUr 
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

And how is the Canadian economy doing?

"When we see government stimulus end and the private sector to walk on its own two legs, I will feel a lot more confident," says David Rosenberg, Chief Economist & Strategist, Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc.

David spoke at YPO Leadership conference and gave the strong message that he is looking for sustainability. For investors, the market is being driven by government stimulus. This is the reason he is a bear on the US equity market. Canada is different as it is financial and commodities only, so much less of a diverse market. Resources have driven up the value of the Canadian dollar.

Look for multinationals who can benefit from the weaker Canadian dollar - those with Chinese and Indian businesses.

Posted by Jacoline Loewen, author of Money Magnet. See Financial Post video interview.

What do you think of upfront fees?

The Private equity and Venture Capital Group has been running the longest discussion on Linkedin on the hot topic of paying up front fees for capital raises.
Here is one comment that caught my eye"

I've worked with the CEO's and BOD's of many companies in their efforts to raise series A, B, or C capital. The issue of upfront fees normally arises when efforts to raise angel or VC funds have been exhausted and companies reach out to the alternative capital markets. As we all know during the last 18 months the traditional sources of capital have become scarce.In the alternative capital markets, it is common practice for the investment finders to charge upfront fees and generally these are large sums before beginning any work.

That being said, I have recently, through close long-term contacts in the VC industry, been introduced to an investment capital finder who does a great job raising capital and unlike investment capital companies like Bain, Goldman and others who charge large upfront fees. Loewen & Partners does not. 

Rather they  take a strategic partnership approach with company CEO's who have a business model they think can be executed successfully by charging a modest monthly cost share during the capital raise period. They don't want to make money on the front end but rather taking a strategic partnership approach with their clients, money is made on the back end of the deal when the capital closes escrow.

Loewen & Partners' business model makes complete sense to me as a outsider and business person. They have some skin in the game utilizing staff to zero in on sources of capital that would be a good match with the entrepreneur's business model. And with the cost share model , the entrepreneur has skin in the game preventing him/her from window shopping for money and then just walking away when the capital sources are brought to the table to negotiate the terms sheet. 

In my opinion, If you can find a similar capital finder who will do a cost share approach during the raising period, rather than charge large up front fees, you will have a win/win approach in raising your capital needs.

Peter's Question

“If the company disappeared, would it be missed?”

This question was posed by the thoughtful Peter Barlas, a portfolio manager at KJ Harrison, a company that invests high net worth individuals’ money. Peter was taking us through his logic in picking companies for this next stretch of market which is going to have "S" curves with oil slicks galore. 

If you want to know his stock picks, which I thought to be shrewd, you can get hold of him at KJ Harrison.

Now, what about you, what companies would you miss? Philip Lieberman, KJ Harrison, told me he would miss Gillette, but not Crate & Barrel, which is why retailers are falling from favour currently. For me, Apple would be a big black hole; their podcast feature alone has changed the way I get information.

If you are considering attracting money to your business, Peter’s question is a good one to ask each and every day. Would your company be missed? If not, why not? What would be the much requested features? That could add to your valuation.

What happens to companies with private equity?

Financial Post's John Turley-Ewart discusses private equity with author and entrepreneur Jacoline Loewen.

Watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnfT3110upo&feature=related

Family businesses can grow to become major forces in their economies.

It is tough to keep a family business in the hands of the family, yet there are options. Private equity likes family businesses as other companies prefer doing work with them and customers like the feel of a family brand over a corporate one.
Very few large family businesses thrive beyond the third generation. Those that do, find ways to run themselves professionally while making the family happy. Private equity can play a huge role in keeping family legacy but the business moving forward profitably.

McKinsey and Co did research on how family businesses have managed to evolve and survive in various countries.

In advanced economies, as well as in emerging markets, most companies start out as family-owned businesses. From their humble beginnings, driven by entrepreneurial vision and energy, some have grown to become major forces in their economies. Indeed, this still happens not only in emerging markets, with their chaebols in South Korea and grupos in Latin America, but also in North America and Europe, where relatively young family-owned businesses such as Wal-Mart Stores, Bertelsmann, and Bombardier, to name just a few, have become front-runners.

But family-owned businesses—companies in which a family has a controlling stake—face a sobering reality: the statistical odds on their long-term success are bleak. In fact, a number of studies, taken together, suggest that only 5 percent continue to create shareholder value beyond the third generation. This statistic should come as no surprise, given the business challenges any company faces in increasingly competitive markets, to say nothing of the difficulty of keeping growing numbers of family shareholders committed to continued ownership. One kind of risk for these businesses comes from the generations that follow the founder, whose drive and business acumen they might not match, though they may insist on managing the company.

Jacoline Loewen, partner, author of Money Magnet, How to attract investors to your business.

Top 50 CEOs list has only 15 out of 50 MBAs - what gives?

The MBA does bring a great deal of value in taking you to the next level in thinking and giving you a instant network of equally competitive and performance driven people. It is always worthwhile revisiting the objective of obtaining an MBA. Is it to get you on the top 50, highest performing CEO list or to give you an introduction to management? 
Roger Martin, Dean of Rotman, is one of the leading edge leaders of business schools, I believe, and we are lucky to have him here in Canada. In the USA, here are thoughts on the MBA by one of my favorite out of the box investment advisors - Check out Clemens Kownatski' blog for more:

MBA Reality Check: "Harvard Business Review just published: The Best-Performing CEOs in the World

Very interesting to see who is on that list and even more interesting to learn what their backgrounds are.  As a Business School graduate, I often wonder about the merits of an MBA degree, considering the time, effort and substantial capital that went into the education.  Going through the list of  Top50 CEOs, I noticed that only 15 out of 50 (less than a third) had a formal business education.  Although I still consider business school one of the best investments I ever made, one has to wonder what these Non-MBAs know that isn’t taught in business school and whether or not that skill can be taught at all? Next time you consider an investment, you may wonder what makes people like Steve Jobs such an “out of the box” thinker; perhaps the same thought process could be used when analyzing your next investment."

You can read more by Clemens Kownastski's latest issue of Market Insights, also available at: http://fxinvestmentstrategies.blogspot.com/

As always, please email any questions to Clemens at: info@fxistrategies.com.

Financial Post interview with Jacoline Loewen: http://bit.ly/8bDKmJ