Dragons Bail on Yet Another Deal

The CBC show, Dragons' Den, is in serious danger of getting the same tarnished image that tinged the British show - the Dragons will not close the deals they agreed to do on national TV. There are all sorts of excuses.
Again, after the Uno letdown, Brett Wilson is left alone holding the bag to finance a great product, Ecotraction, and finally, this is getting noticed by the newspaper journalists. Mary Teresa Bitti, Financial Post writes, "all five (Dragons) agreed to put up a combined $500,000 for a 25% stake." They blame their change of heart on the market collapse.
That's a convenient excuse.
There are two types of investors: those that do it for a living and those who have made it, and invest their own money. The Dragons are supposed to be in the later category. Surely, they can afford $75,000 each on a product with guaranteed sales? Or maybe not?
I have a spread sheet tracking deals declared and deals done. Email me if you want a copy to see how much these Dragons are actually putting into our Canadian entrepreneurs. CBC should be asking Arelene Dickinson and Brett Wilson if they have any buddies who want to be Dragons and kick out the others who don't cough up the dough.

Which Dragon Invests the Least?

Here’s a challenge for all of CBC's Dragons' Den armchair investors. You have been riveted by these intelligently selective Dragons sifting over the business ventures brought into the Den. Now it’s time to swivel your armchairs away from the entrepreneurs, towards the Dragons.
First up, let’s do a little of our own “Due Diligence.”
If you pull up the CBC Dragons’ Den website and find Trent Kitsch’s record of past episodes, he helpfully lists the dollar value of the deals made and the Dragons who committed capital, making it easy to jot down the investment record of each Dragon. Since Trent’s blog only goes up to Episode 8, I may be missing a deal here or there, but I think there’s enough to chew on the interesting statistics.
I invite you to examine the Dragons’ Score Card (at the top of this blog) where next to each Dragon’s name, you will find the number of deals done and, as Robert Herjavec likes to say, “money put at risk”.
So chaps, how’s the investing going?
From my calculations, our Dragons from Alberta are demonstrating why they are the “have” province and Ontario is the “have not”. W. Brett Wilson and Arlene Dickinson committed to 18 deals and $3.2 million in investments.
And surprise, surprise – what do we have here? The lowest investor is the one with the most bluster. It’s dear old Mr. Kevin O’Leary. Well, well, well.
Jack Welsh, the leader who took General Electric (GE) to the top of the stock market, had a firm but simple rule: the bottom 10% performers of the work force got fired – every year!
Sounds cruel?
Well, Kevin has been telling us all season that the market is cruel, so why shouldn’t the market bite down hard on a low investing Dragon? Why should it just be the presenters who have that unwanted feeling of hot adrenaline?
By the current rules, the Dragons are not under any obligation to spend a dime, but surely they should be under pressure? After all, in the real world, investors have their laws of the marketplace too. If they don’t invest, they obtain a low return on their capital, and if they are managing other people’s money and don’t have the ‘ovaries’ (or other body parts) to place it, that cash would be taken back rapidly.
If an investor does not commit dollars to companies, the only return they are making is on their original lump sum of capital and what’s the point of that? Kevin should know better than any as he runs a fund and, for sure, works within this rule. Right now, Kevin has the lowest record for investing capital and for that, to coin one of his favourite phrases, “he should be blowtorched out of existence.”
A common complaint by investors in the real world is that they don’t see good enough deals, and I suspect that the Dragons would say the same about the visitors to their Den, “They’re a little subprime, not likely to profit.”
Pardon me, but all sorts of idiotic things do well. The game Trivial Pursuit got turned down by hundreds of Angel investors who thought it was too dull. I still love mood rings, tiny troll dolls with pink hair, Billy Bee Honey but who would’ve invested in those things at their start? Even Barbie had its troubles getting launched.
That’s an excuse.
With the celebrity of the Dragons, many of the company products could gain some momentum. Surely, with several Dragons pitching in with their skills and rolodexes of global contacts, they could achieve something?
Ya’think?
Ah…but Kevin would say he adds valuable entertainment which should be factored in to his score card.
Fair enough.
Although, the Dragons’ Den is a display of Canadian entrepreneurship, it has to be watchable and it’s an added benefit that Kevin does an exceptional job of teaching. Our Canadian show is far superior to the British version because we are fortunate to have entrepreneurs with deep experience: Jim Treliving adds gravitas, Arlene Dickinson mixes in marketing sense, Brett Wilson brings formidable gunpowder, Robert Herjavec has spark and it is exciting to see Kevin grasp onto entrepreneurs and drag them flailing around the Den. People going on the show do realize there must be good ratings, but the fair swap is that there is a real cash opportunity too.
If it’s ratings the CBC needs, maybe one of the entrepreneurs could come back on the final show and say, “Kevin, you’re out!” push him shouting across a moat and as the draw bridge pulls up, a sofa-sized dragon could lunge at him.
Is it possible that he could even scream?
You have to admit, that would make great entertainment and since ratings are a factor in this materialistic, greedy, money-grubbing world of ours, a scene of a Dragon’s demise would be of enormous interest to more than a few viewers.
Which Dragon would you roast?
Right – so we are agreed then. Here are the new rules for the Dragons: lowest cash investor, you are the weakest Dragon. In Kevin’s words, “You’re a nothing burger”. You’re off the show!
Now, that’s entertainment.

Cluster$%#@ to Power

This is the worst possible scenario.  Amidst the most severe economic turmoil since the Great Depression, Canadian politics got interesting.  Not good.  Of course, I hope no one is under the impression that the concerns of the guerrilla faction, namely the leaders of the opposition parties, is entirely concerned with the absence of a stimulus package.  The plans for this coup were put in place weeks ago by Jack Layton and the Separatists; and there could not be a worst time to be getting politically creative, it will be the economy that suffers.

Canada's economy, still regarded by many as a bastion of stability amidst the world's other large economies, actually exceeded analysts' expectations last month while others continue to falter.  The country's gross domestic product expanded by an annualized rate of 1.3%, the fastest in a year, last month, a month which saw some of the most volatile stock market movements in 20 years.  While Britain and the U.S. wane under the pressure of the crushing lack of credit, Canada's approach has squeezed stability and modest growth from our industry.  Obviously, it is unlikely that this will continue with exports declining as they are (1.4% last quarter, the fifth straight decline), but a rash, emotional approach to this situation will destabilize confidence and certainly create uncertainty.  The wherewithal of a coalition government, one led by Dion and backed by socialists and separatists, is, though historic, an unlikely, unproven, and confusing alternative to what is in place now.  

The Canadian dollar will certainly depreciate as a result of this politically driven turmoil, and considering the fall in commodity prices and weakened American demand, will not prove advantageous to the Canadian manufacturing and resource industry.  Interest rates will rise in pursuit of fleeing capital, which will make credit even less accessible, making investment in infrastructure and development less productive and less profitable.  

A stimulus package from a coalition will undoubtedly be influenced considerably by the NDP, preying upon the acquiescence of the Liberals, desperately clinging to power.  A socialist stimulus package would likely be focused on consumers rather than industry.  Rather than corporate tax breaks and subsidies to provide incentive and support for investment in infrastructure to support sustainable growth, for example, the coalition would benefit most from a package that pacifies voters with consumer focused incentives, such as Bush's tax rebate that delved out about $1,200 to each citizen in the U.S. last February.  As Bush's example showed this type of incentive program would prove ineffectual, even disastrous, since consumers are free to spend as they wish.  The $1,200 that Bush dished out went, in large part, to foreign exports, which is no help to the domestic market, some even stashed the money in the bank for darker days, like today.  The Liberals do have some economic heavyweights that seem poised to act as advisers, if a coalition is to take over governing, who would likely see the impracticality of this approach.  The issues are that the Liberals may have no choice in the matter and as a result, no one knows what is in store or who would be involved or in which capacity.  

The point is that the very economy that the coalition says it's protecting will suffer on account of their actions, certainly in the near-term, likely in the long.  The cornucopia of potential quagmires we are headed towards if we are led by a coalition government of liberals, socialists, and separatists is a distasteful, abhorrent, godless thing to behold.  Of course, the Conservatives are not without blame in this mess, and there are points in their fiscal update that definitely deserves vilification, but to usurp the government as its walks a tight rope through these volatile times is hypocritical to the very cause the coalition seems committed to resolve.  In the long-term, this may prove as politically disastrous for the liberals, NDP, and Separatists, as it will prove to the economy in the short-term.

Why Hank Paulson Let Lehman Brothers Go

The reason Hank Paulson let Lehman Brothers fail, according to a Wall Street insider, is because he hated the CEO, Richard Fuld – the man who got punched in the face while exercising at his company gym. Seems Paulson was not alone in those feelings. Paulson, who rose up the ranks to run Goldman Sachs, is leading the government program to get the American stock market back to its punching weight.
“Thank heavens Paulson’s doing it,” says this leading investment banker, as we chatted at the St Andrew’s Ball, waiting for the next Scottish dance, Strip the Willow, to get going.
“He knows what he’s doing and this is a situation we have never seen before. He's not going to let Goldman Sachs go because it's the centre of capitalism. If that goes, the very essence of capitalism goes too.”
The banker went on to explain that in the USA, if a business person joins government, they get a once-in-a-life-time chance to sell off all of their business interests tax free. For Paulson, this was reportedly about $600M in tax free savings as he made the switch from Wall Street to the government. Apparently this is a great incentive to get top quality brains working for the government.
Agreed.
It does show you that even in melt downs, who you know and who likes you still counts.

Confused by the Credit Crunch?

Having a hard time understanding collateralized debt obligations? Those financial instruments that got us into this financial mess are confusing many investors.
Marketplace Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch gives a superb lesson on how this credit crisis started and may give you a sense of when it may end.
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb_R1-PqRrw

Someone to Watch Over You

I listened to a speech while lunching at Bay Street's secret handshake club last week where the guest speaker was Tom Hockin.
He told us not to tell anyone else, but since the finance industry was in such a crisis, now was the time to stop the madness of 13 separate regulatory bodies and merge into one.
Mr Hockin had travelled across Canada, putting together legislation that everyone - except Quebec - agreed to support.
Appears that The National Post got the story a few days later:

Canadian businesses would no longer have to file securities filings with 13
different provincial and territorial regulators, as they have for decades, and
brings to an end a much-criticized regulatory system described as "convoluted",
"unwieldy" and "Byzantine".
Instead, stock and bond-issuing institutions
would have to file prospectuses and other regulatory documents with only two
regulators -- a national body and its Quebec counterpart.

I'm Quiet and Thoughtful - Really!

Let’s talk about the real stars of Dragons’ Den – the brave entrepreneurs pitching their stories.
Did you know you can find past Dragons’ Den some of these people blogging on the CBC website, commenting on the deals and the Dragons?
It’s all very impressive.
In another reality show, The Bachelor, the girls who compete to win the heart of the single male return for one episode to confront the poor fellow.
Unlike The Bachelor, Dragons’ Den does not dedicate a show to the entrepreneurs returning to roast the Dragons - Arlene, Brett, Kevin, Jim and Robert.
To give the CBC credit, it lets fans know how the entrepreneurs and their businesses progressed and gives past winners, like Trent Kitsch of SAXX, their own blog too. But here’s the thing: participants can get in their two cents about their deal by blogging on the Forum just like TomChalker of dataSentinel who helpfully answered other bloggers’ questions. If you are expecting mildly depressed, dejected entrepreneurs who harbour ill will, forget that.
There are the budding armchair venture capitalists, like Dannolin and Pinebox, rating the merits of each business or venting about their own Den experience. Reading the past contestants and their often provocative takes on current pitches is fascinating because these guys know their stuff. It’s as if they’ve been through the miracle of entering the Dragons’ Den as innocents and emerging as venture capitalists (with tougher comments than Jim or Arlene would ever utter.)
The leader of the blogger pack is Ralfcis – he of the “sharpened keyboard” – was an engineer at Nortel. With his quirky wit and prolific writing, Rolfcis could make a career change from engineer drop-out to ad copy writer. Ralfcis describes his experience on a previous season of Dragons’ Den and as I read, it all came flooding back. Rolfcis was expecting a display table where he could spread out his samples. Instead, he had to stand up and pull out each item from the bag. Needless to say, things did not go well.
Rolfcis blogs about the good natured reaction to the pitch by Dragon Laurence Lewin, who sadly has just lost his battle with cancer.
Allison of Ariel Angels blogged all the way from Dubai to recommend a book called What Makes Things Stick. At first I was dubious and thought she just wanted to make Kevin O’Leary stick to the wall. In fact, the book’s inspired by Malcom Gladwell’s best seller book, Tipping Point and is a must read for anyone selling a product.
Maybe the bloggers could run a book list?
My happy browsing came to an abrupt halt when I read the name of a blogger called Darryl Koster. Hang on a mo. Isn’t he the pleasant CEO of Buster Rhino, that delicious sauce signed on with Brett Wilson and Robert Herjavec?
In the CBC Forum, Darryl Koster, the CEO, reveals to us that he turned down Brett and Robert’s deal. When I read that I went oooh nooo!
Where was the spoiler alert, Darryl?
I know there’s that six month delay from filming to the airing of the show but think about it, if you found out before season end of The Bachelor that the final girl has split and is living cheerfully with someone else, wouldn’t that be a huge let down? Darryl does make up for it by giving great website and technology advice to other presenters which may mean I have to vote him the season winner. Darryl, can you check out my website and give me some feedback?
There are many financiers who build their careers from the engineering profession and one of those people is the Big Kahuna blogger, Dragon W. Brett Wilson. How great is that to have a Dragon cruise around the Forum and drop in to blog?
Brett does not do much chit chat on the TV show except when he revves at warp drive to do a deal. Fasten your seat belts, ladies and gentlemen. The bloggers do appreciate how Brett shows up on the chat forums explaining why he made decisions and answering issues raised. He also says that he is not as the CBC portrays him – quiet and thoughtful.
Are you kidding, Brett?
That’s like describing Clint Eastwood as quiet and thoughtful. You are in the entertainment industry for a reason; it’s not because of your bookish ways. But don’t worry, your secret’s safe with us.
The bloggers do spend a great deal of time debating whether the show is better or worse with Kevin’s dramatics. One blogger calls Kevin a troll hiding under the bridge waiting to trap entrepreneurs which is a gross insult and unfair to trolls worldwide. Yet, I do believe Kevin really does the fairest exchange on Dragons’ Den as he teaches while he makes his decisions. After going through the hour meeting with Kevin, not one entrepreneur could possibly say, “I do not know why he did not invest with me, why my business needs to be changed, how my revenues might not reach the amount I expect or what I need to do.”
Not one Angel investor out in the real world would give anywhere near that much information for an entrepreneur to take away. In fact, investors say, “I like your plan but could you give us a call in a year?” That translates into au revoir. Most entrepreneurs would prefer to get more feedback than that.
I notice many bloggers have picked up Kevin’s key phrases too – the sign of a great teacher:
Let me use my time machine, slash, crystal ball and visit the future to imagine how the business revenues go.
Here comes Kevin and his bus.
How do we make moneeeeeeey.
Brett on the other hand chooses to share his investment strategies after the fact on the blogs. Either way, I think this sharing of knowledge is a fair swap between presenters and Dragons.
There is the trade theory that when people show each other their goods, it creates more perceived value, even though money may not have exchanged hands. The Dragons’ Den has entrepreneurs show their businesses and Dragons give their analysis and, sometimes, cash. Maybe this does create good will.
Several bloggers, like sslondon, liked the Dragons giving away cash in cheap loans because they had sympathy for someone’s situation. Brett Wilson and Robert Herjovec have done this so far and the Forums fans eat it up. I hate to rain on the parade, but if venture capitalists and Angels practiced this style of investing, they would be bankrupt within the year. Most businesses have their investing rules and deal structures. Doing venture capital and then veering abruptly to the left to give a loan or two means way too much complication for your average VC to manage.
Firms tend to do their philanthropy separately and for good reason. Maybe a philanthropy option should be built into the Dragons’ Den rules as a life line to be given once during the season, but Kevin O’Leary is right: feeling for a business owner is generally not the way the prickly world of investing works.
Kevin is teaching entrepreneurs how to fish; actually, he’s teaching how to spear gun and he doesn’t just hand over the darn fish.
For all you past contestant bloggers – here’s an idea for you:
What about a road show? You could call it, Lessons Learnt in Dragons’ Den. (Ralfcis, I’m sure you could come up with a catchier title). Maybe the sponsors like Profit magazine or EDC would be interested in supporting an event? Perhaps the School Boards may like you speaking to their high school students taking business classes. There are many entrepreneurs out in Canuckland who would benefit from hearing more from your side. I know I did.
Just a thought.

Theatre of the Absurd

Recently I spoke to a young, upwardly mobile, American private equity associate out of Chicago at the latest ACG Conference in Toronto.  I asked, as I did many, how low EBITDA multiples had dropped in the U.S., and this particular investment professional said something absurd...  "Actually, we recently lost out on a deal because we valued the company too low at a 16x multiple, the final valuation was 20x apparently".  

Where had this guy come from, El Dorado?  The more common language trudging through the marble halls of private equity firms is far more vehement at its core as the tide of credit slips through their hands. Many in the portfolio management industry are using words like "capitulation" to describe the current market apoplexy.  Private equity fund managers are not exactly having that much fun, but they are now being forced to reinforce their dykes against the fallout flood of melting consumer confidence, recessionary hyperbole, and teetering financial institutional giants.

The G20 meeting held by the world's undisputed champion of empty pledges, George W. Bush, was held in Washington on November 14, and looked like a charming get-together for the President and 20 of his closest friends, its effectiveness is yet to be seen, but certainly the opportunity to establish a sense of global solidarity was lost amidst the vagueness of the summit's conclusions. And today, before a podium and in front of a dilapidated-looking Henry Paulson, George Bush announced yet another emergency and absolutely necessary bailout package for another of the United States' beleaguered financial institutions, though Congress dismissed the auto industry the week prior.  

It seems things have reached a point of absurdity, the now mighty Democrats (though so did a few Republicans) triumphantly lambasted the auto industry executives about the dysfunctional nature of their business models last week, but petitioned the very same industry not a month earlier by calling for protectionist measures (also laying the ground work for higher operating costs and material costs) when they were fighting for their own jobs.

In 1961, Martin Esslen coined the term Theatre of the Absurd to describe a type of tragicomedy, in which rationality is usually corrupted to disenchant the audience and cultivate a sense of unreality...nowadays it seems life does imitate art.  Though a 20x multiple is absurd to most in the private equity industry, these days, absurdity may actually lend itself to credibility.  

We are all richer with Free Trade

"Do you know how to make a sandwich?" asked Mr. Lajeaneusse, an economics teacher at UCC high school.
Sure, I thought - two slices of bread, ham, cheese and maybe a piece of tomato.
"What would be the price of that sandwich?"
Well, depending on where you are buying all the parts making up that sandwich, but probably several dollars.
Mr Lajeaneusse then asked, "Now, what about a pencil. Can you make a pencil?"
Errr...nope.
"So why is the cost of a pencil so much lower than that of a sandwich?"
Adam Smith explained this concept of specialization back a few centuries when he used the example of the cost to an individual to make a pin. There are economic clubs trying to do just that but Mr Lajeanesse makes the point just as well.
The tasty sandwich example illustrates why specialization of skills pays off in bringing down the time and price for making something. He also showed how trade is of benefit to us all. Instead of our neighbours, today we trade around the world and there is talk about trade barriers going up again.
Here's a video clip of Milton Friedman Mr.Lajeanesse shared, explaining why free trade is a great thing for the world. I particularly like it when Milton Freidman talks about world peace. Now if only we could get beauty queens to discuss how world peace and free trade work together!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU&feature=email

Stand out in this economy

What makes one conference centre company’s service so much better than the others?

The human element.

But when most venues say they train their staff, what can make the crucial difference?

Ricky Bhang of The National Club says, “My pet peeve is when someone says no.” Ricky trains the staff at this exclusive Bay Street club to never let the word “No” be heard by a client. If a club member makes a request that the staff member believes to be impossible, they are trained to start the conversation with, “Let me find out and get right back to you.”
As Ricky says, “If you are paying and someone says no, that is going to reduce the experience. Even if it’s just a little, it’s still not the best.” This week, listen to how you speak to clients. How about a week where we all take a little training from Ricky Bhang and say, “Yes.”