Deloitte reports Private Equity's Confidence

Private equity is stepping up and getting the results where the public market lags. A report from Deloitte goes on to explain:

 There is still confidence and optimism among private equity fund managers (GPs), according to the latest Mena Private Equity Confidence Survey released by Deloitte. The annual survey, conducted for Deloitte by Arbor Square Associates, is designed to measure confidence and market sentiment in the private equity market.

read more

Jacoline Loewen, Private Equity expert and author of Money Magnet.

4 Lessons from Physics for Marketing

Marketing and physics do seem a natural combination but here is a talk by Dan Cobley, a physics expert, on 4 lessons marketing can draw from the common laws of physics.

NI 31-103 is a really bold change

Individuals and firms who distribute exempt-market securities are scrambling to meet the new requirements they’ll face beginning Sept. 28. In fact, some are even moving out of the exempt-securities realm altogether as they assess the drastic regulatory reforms associated with National Instrument 31-103.

The new regulations include widespread changes for exempt-market dealers. EMDs include those who distribute prospectus-exempt securities such as hedge funds, principal-protected notes and limited partnerships, as well as those who work with accredited investors. 

“This is the one area of NI 31-103 that is a really bold change,” says Geoffrey Ritchie, executive director of the Toronto-based Exempt Market Dealers Association of Canada. “It’s a huge transition.”

Most of NI 31-103’s new regulations came into effect on Sept. 28, 2009. However, existing EMD firms and reps had one year to comply with some of the requirements. Regulators are warning that registrants who fail to meet the looming deadline could face immediate suspension until they comply.

For firms dealing in exempt securities, the upcoming deadline includes new capital requirements, beefed-up disclosure rules and new filing requirements for financial statements. Dealing reps at these firms, meanwhile, face new proficiency requirements under which they must successfully complete either the Canadian securities course offered by Toronto-based CSI Global Education Inc. or the more specialized exempt-market products course offered by the Investment Funds Institute of Canada’s IFSE Institute. 

Chief compliance officers with EMDs are also required to complete one of these two courses, along with either IFSE’s officers, partners and directors course or CSI’s partners, directors and senior officers course.

The new proficiency requirements are intended to protect investors, according to the Ontario Securities Commission, by ensuring that reps who deal with the exempt market meet minimum qualifications.
Find out more about the Exempt Market Dealers Association http://www.emdacanada.com/

Big, greedy drug companies don't do any research

Innovation seems to be thought of as something that just happens - shezaam, eureka. The head of Government Health in South Africa back in 1994, demanded that the greedy pharmas hand over their drugs at cost and went on to berate corporate drug companies. That health minister is now dead but the argument about greedy pharma continues. Derek Lowe has something to say to the folks who claim that all the "real" research on pharmaceuticals is done in universities, and drug companies just steal

Allow me to rant for a bit, because I saw yet another argument the other day that the big drug companies don't do any research, no, it's all done at universities with public funds, at which point Big Pharma just swoops in and makes off with the swag. You know the stuff. Well, I would absolutely love to have the people who hold that view explain the PPAR story to me. I really would. The drug industry poured a huge amount of time and money into both basic and applied research in that area, and they did it for years. No one has to take my word for it - ask any of the academic leaders in the field if GSK or Merck, to name just two companies, managed to make any contributions.

We did it, naturally, because we expected to make a profit out of it in the end. The whole PPAR story looked like a great way to affect metabolic disorders and plenty of other diseases as well: cancer, inflammation, cardiovascular. That is, if we could just manage to understand what was going on. But we didn't. Once we all figured out that nuclear receptors were involved and got busy on drug discovery on that basis, we didn't help anyone with any diseases, and we didn't make any profits. Big piles of money actually disappeared during the process, never to be seen again. You could ask Merck about that, or GSK (post-rosiglitazone), or Lilly, or BMS, or Bayer, and plenty of other players large and small.

No one hears about these things.  We're understandably reluctant to go on about our failures in this industry, but the side effect is that people who aren't paying attention end up thinking that we don't have any. Nothing could be more mistaken. And they aren't failures to come up with a catchy slogan or to find a good color scheme for the packaging - they're failures back at the actual science, where reality meets our ideas about it, and likely as not beats them down to the floor.

Honestly, I don't understand where these they-don't-do-any-research folks get off. Look at the patent filings. Look at the open literature. Where on earth do you think all those molecules come from, all those research programs to fill up all those servers? There are whole scientific journals that wouldn't exist if it weren't for a steady stream of failed research projects. Where's it all coming from?

What is happening to entrepreneurial businesses

My partner and I own a successful e-commerce website. We started it in the late 1990's by ourselves and now we have five employees. Our growth came from personal resources, as well as credit card lines. Each year we saw sales increases of at least 10-20%. However, in late 2008/early 2009, we started seeing our sales slipping. As a result (and watching our competitors) we lowered our on-line prices to continue to drive sales. As of today, our prices are 40% below where they were in 2008. However, we have the same number of customers - we just work a heck of a lot harder!

On the negative side, we saw all of our credit card lines cut, so we can no longer use them. Bank financing is completely out as we have no business assets so to speak (our business is online - not manufacturing). We have cut costs by moving to a cheaper office location, letting one employee go and demanding lower prices from our own suppliers (mostly successful). As a result of our cost cutting, our bottom line has only slipped 10%. We feel very fortunate in this regard.

As to what would help our small business grow and hire people again - simple; more sales! We do NOT need to borrow more money as we already owe enough and our capacity is only at 50%. So what would we borrow money for? More production? We don't have the sales.

So QE actions by the Fed have no effect on us. Interest rates could go to zero and it still would not matter. What we are NOT seeing are credit card rates going down - now THAT might help us somewhat. Regardless, it seems that the economists in charge are playing from the old handbook of everyone borrowing money to spend money. Needless to say, it's not working - but you already knew that. Thanks again and keep telling the truth.

Danny
Austin, Texas