Investing

Energy-Disruption-Collage-1024x330-1

15 Jul 2019

0 Comments

Investing Through The Unfolding Energy Disruption

Although a life long mathematician and technologist, recently much of my focus has been on being a savvy investor, in many asset classes from private seed/angel investing to public markets and alternative investments. While Canadian investors have traditionally thrived on conservative, cash generating value investing and fixed income plays, the future is rendering such risk averse models obsolete, making it critical to adopt a forward lens, looking out, perhaps a decade into the future.

I have lived through many market disruptions in which “software is eating the world.” Such disruptions include the “Kodak Moment” of digital photography rendering mining of silver oxide to supply the ecosystem around film irrelevant in a digital photography age. Another exemplar is the upending the entire value chain for newspapers and other ad-funded media by the likes of Google (Adwords) EBay (classified ads).

Energy has driven world economies for time immemorial and may even have led to the fall of the Roman Empire. As modern societies have become wealthier, energy consumption has seen stratospheric growth. The simple reason is that Energy underpins the creature comforts of modern society, including food, shelter, transportation and consumer consumption. There is widespread concern that this nonstop growth model that underpins our economy is ultimately unsustainable, particularly as rich country ways spread to the rest of the soon to be 10 billion people on planet earth. The younger generation, who will ultimately see the limits of such consumption in their lifetimes, has embraced a more pessimistic view of their future and adopted a focus on lifestyle changes, including low carbon (vegan or vegetarian) diets, not owning a car, and trying to eschew rampant consumerism.

Essentially, there are two paths open to a more sustainable way of living:

  • conservation, in which individuals strive to lower their environmental (primarily carbon) footprint, and
  • a technology revolution in which traditional energy is replaced, for example by renewables, and even more radical, technologies that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Thus, futurists have long predicted the same fate for energy driven by new technologies that include renewables, storage (battery and other), Digital Electricity, subjecting the global energy market to its own “Kodak Moment” of digital disruption. The future has arrived, and today in 2019, this energy disruption is already in full force, potentially rendering oil, gas and coal essentially obsolete over a time as short as the next decade.

What does this mean for the Canadian investor, including business, government and insurance companies who all will see their future results impacted by how this unfolds?

I have been researching a formal presentation around energy disruption for investors, but this recent CBC article spurred me to publish this post and perhaps have readers send me their thoughts and research.

Governments aren't calculating the true cost of fighting climate change when they fail to take into account side effects such as fewer deaths from air pollution - co-benefits that make the net cost of climate action as low as zero, growing evidence shows.
Read More
www.cbc.ca

The above article is instructive inasmuch as it paints a picture of a better world achieved by strategically and aggressively re-allocating resources in our economy. The suggestion is that to do so, far from being foolishly spendthrift, is our most rational and positive outcome. What it doesn’t say is that to delay doing this, by allowing others to capture leadership in the “new”, post fossil fuel, growth industries, render Canada a much poorer (aka “third world”) country in the future.

The fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) industry is facing many headwinds, which has moved economists from a previous narrative of concern about “Peak Oil” (ie. the world is running out of oil) to the new narrative of “Peak Demand” (ie. demand will drop as energy consumption is disrupted by new technologies). Here are some of the head winds and their implications:

  • Over the last decade, coal power, one of our greatest carbon producers, has already been rendered uneconomic, with declines in coal mining and production starting from around 2010.
  • Solar and Wind electricity production costs continue to drop and since 2016 are cheaper at scale than oil, and now gas (including Gas Peaker Plants).
  • The electrification of transportation, from cars, buses, trucking and more, is continuing to grow rapidly year over year. Current estimates call for Peak Petroleum Vehicle (ie. those “ICE” or Internal Combustion Engine powered) sales to occur by 2023.
  • New technologies, particularly in the areas of energy storage, are quickly coming on stream. Year over year more than doubling in such storage capacity further indicates exponential disruption at work.
  • Carbon pricing, in whatever form whether carbon tax or cap and trade, is needed for the market economy to work and will certainly become pervasive as the climate crisis escalates. It will require the majority of people to demand government policy and action. Current government policies seem to be held hostage to the oil and gas lobby instead of the wishes of the general public, although some parties try to disguise oil and gas wishes as “for the people”.
  • Fossil fuel subsidies in Canada, including taxes and direct subsidies, are estimated to be between $30 and $50 Billion annually. I continue to work at sourcing more definitive subsidy data, but it is clear that simply better allocating these subsidies to a cleaner future must happen.
  • Because the oil industry has known about our current Climate Crisis for many years (40 or more) and actively spread misinformation and hugely lobbied governments to ignore the long term effects, litigation for the damages caused by climate change will only escalate. This is analogous to the class action suits against tobacco companies for spreading misinformation about smoking in the 1960s and 1970s that have made these industries Wall Street pariahs today. In essence, this misinformation and deflection is an attempt to delay the inevitable, at the cost of real future damage to our world and the people inhabiting it.
  • Fake News Has a Cost: various industries have spent billions of dollars bombarding us with a continuous stream misinformation in order to distract and deflect us from proper policy. While the Kohl Brothers who make money from coal are legendary, examples of other myths include:
    • apparently the power unions and nuclear industry heavily fund anti-wind energy misinformation, such as Wind Turbine Syndrome
    • the auto industry funds significant misinformation about EVs, and this isn’t just in Buzzfeed, but in fact finds itself in otherwise reputable news media like The Globe and Mail: See The Trouble with Electric Vehicles – Winter and Out in the Cold with a Hyundai Kona Electric.
    • consider both the cost to all of us when this misinformation helps form government policy and also the notion that those promulgating this misinformation may attract future liability for harm stemming from real harm their actions inflict on society.
  • For those not familiar with Exponential Innovation, it can be deceptive because humans tend to see growth as linear and get caught off guard as what look like small numbers rapidly balloon into much larger ones. The perceptual problem that people have with Exponential Technology Adoption curves is explained here: The Problem With Exponential Innovation : People

The above just skims the surface of the major disconnect between reality and lobbying and misinformation. Those who want to drill deeper into this fascinating world of energy disruption may wish to check out this video by futurist and technologist Ramez Naam from Singularity University.

Ramez Naam – Future of Energy

All of this leads to predictions that, by around 2030, both the price of oil and the public market stock prices of public oil majors crater. In the process, some economists predict that globally US$100 Trillion (yes that’s right) of fossil fuel assets will be kept in the ground, and hence written down. Such a staggering number means a huge economic dislocation for countries, companies [and investors].

Here are some closing thoughts:

  • Short Coal, Oil and Gas: and their ecosystem. Although no one can be sure about the timing, the fact that the coming energy disruption will have a hugely detrimental effect on these industries is irrefutable. Don’t get caught in the massive price (commodity and stock) swings that this market disruption will unleash. You heard it here first!
  • See Beyond Partisan Politics: because parties, and elected representatives, seem more beholden to the 100 largest global fossil fuel companies than their own voters, the time is long overdue to return politics to a grassroots level of democracy where the views of citizen voters actually count. In the US, there is a movement to pressure local representative to refuse fossil fuel industry funding. It will be interesting to watch this unfold here in Canada. No doubt our coming economic transition will be a gargantuan effort — I liken our upcoming transition to the effort to win World War II – everyone united, regardless of party line, for a common cause. It would be good to emulate the spirit of such a war effort. In spite of past failures of partisan politics, the net/net is that citizens can mobilize and collectively push our elected officials toward policies that actually help citizens and our planet.
  • Insurance: The current climate crisis may up-end the property insurance business and make insurance coverage unaffordable for many homeowners. To date, the insurance industry has led in research and advocacy around resilience and adaptation to Climate Change. The day is fast arriving when that will have to change. Increased weather volatility may make the climate so hard to model that realistic pricing of risk, which determines policy premiums, close to impossible. Lastly, as litigation starts to segment companies by liability for knowingly contributing to climate change, the insurance industry will undoubtedly be forced to respond both in their own investment portfolios and in the core insurance business.

As an investor, citizen, and voter I know that we need a significant reset in how we respond to the inevitable decarbonization of our economy. No one suggests it will be easy. Conversely, further inaction and delay will result in hugely greater pain, and suffering.

It’s your choice – where will you place your investment?

By: , , , , , , , , Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
By-4pu7IQAEaKKJ

3 Oct 2014

0 Comments

Canadian Angel of the Year Award

Angel of the Year Award: Yuri Navarro, Jérôme Nycz, Randall Howard, Michelle Scarborough

At the NACO Summit in Québec City, it was truly humbling to receive the Canadian Angel of the Year Award. I see this partly as a calling to be an ambassador to continue to help raise the Angel bar in Canada in the coming years. I wish to thank all those kind colleagues who, unbeknownst to me, wrote letters of nomination. Also, this is all based on the remarkable people at GTAN and in the Waterloo and Canadian ecosystem generally.

In response to the award, and recognizing the opportunity to build on current success, I shared the following observations and future challenges at the closing Keynote on Friday 3 October, 2014.

“TODAY’S CRITICAL MASS CAN POWER A QUANTUM LEAP”

Closing Keynote NACO Summit, Québec City Friday 2 October, 2014

Bonjours, mesdames et messieurs. Good morning, ladies and Gentlemen.

I hope that Yuri was aware of what he was unleashing by inviting me to share perspectives and future challenges of Angel investing in Canada! Not unlike a startup running on “fumes”, Canada’s angel sector reminds me of the quip from cartoonist Bill Hoest: “I just need enough money to tide me over until I need more”. I’ll start by looking back to help us paint a future directional context.

As Angel investors, we’ve watched a powerful people-driven engine, coming from nowhere, to become a key enabler of Canada’s future prosperity. As Angels, we fuel innovation companies with our capital and mentorship, ultimately creating some of the highest value jobs for 21st century Canada. What’s not to like about that?

Let’s turn the clock back about 5 years. In 2009, the global economy endured the infamous credit crunch, perhaps the worst economic correction since the Great Depression. I observed this to be the final nail in the coffin for a large number of Canadian venture capital firms, for years struggling to generate viable returns. The seeming extinction of venture capital A-rounds and the bleak landscape for young, emerging companies, compelled me, as a seasoned tech investor, to get involved with the founders at Golden Triangle AngelNet (GTAN) in Waterloo-Guelph-Wellington-Stratford area. In a pattern surely repeated across Canada, Angel Groups from a slow start quietly and persistently worked to fill the funding gap through a labour-intensive “syndication” of Angel capital, with other groups and with government co-investment. In Ontario, this meant repurposing MaRS IAF from its origins as a VC on-ramp to co-investment in Angel rounds, lobbying that ultimately led to the Feddev “Investing in Business Innovation” (IBI) program, and BDC convertible notes.

A typical syndication for a top tier investee company might entail half a million dollars of Angel money being spun into $1.5 million or more. I used to describe this approach as providing “half the money of a VC A round for 10 times the effort”. At the time, I imagined this to be a strategy for a short term “bridge” of Canada’s innovation ecosystem to a more sustainable future. How did this market correction turn out for Canadian Angels?

NACO stats show a remarkable growth in total Angel investment. Between 2012 and 2013 alone, Canadian Angel group direct investments grew a stellar 120% from $40 million to $89 million. Of course, this doesn’t capture the aforementioned co-investment leverage that Angel investors attract nor does it cover investments outside of NACO members. All of us rightfully deserve to be proud of such collective impact.

But is it enough? Both from my own international investing and available statistics, it would appear that Canada’s Angel ecosystem is ahead of Europe on the maturity curve. I would estimate Canada has a 3-5 year head start on Europe. On the other hand, our American friends are definitely well ahead in maturity, deal dollars and information gathering. Angel Capital Association (ACA) data shows almost $25 billion of total US angel investment in 2013. To be at this level, on a per capita GDP basis, Canada would need about $2.8 billion of annual Angel investment. Even counting all the leverage, Canadian angel investment needs to grow 5 to 10 times over the coming years just to achieve parity with the US.

In Waterloo, home of Perimeter Institute, we tend to love Quantum Mechanics metaphors. Thus, propelling today’s critical mass through a quantum leap is a mission all of us need to work on collectively and individually, whether as angels, angel groups, NACO, governments, venture capitalists, sponsors, in fact, each and every ecosystem participant.

So, I will conclude by identifying just five of the gaps that we collectively need to fill:

  1. Scaling: Recently, my friend Steve Currie, VP Strategy at Communitech, observed “Canada is great at starting companies, but not so good at growing them beyond the 5 year horizon.” This means less job creation but also smaller exits. In a study of 183 recent high tech exits versus 2300 comparable US exits, the average US valuation was US$384 million versus US$100 million for the Canadian companies. I don’t know about you, but I find it simply tragic to leave so much value on the table. Angels have a huge role both in mentoring management skills around scaling, but also pivotal to financing that scaling. And, bigger exits, will in a virtuous circle, drive more Angel investment.
  2. Giving Back: We need more of our successful serial entrepreneurs to become (super) angels and continue to start new ventures. In the Silicon Valley, Paypal alone had 14 serial entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel and Max Levchin whose experience and wealth helped build legends like LinkedIn, YouTube, Tesla, Kiva and Yelp. While we do have a few super angels, we have yet to spawn someone like Ron Conway whose 600 investments include Google, Facebook and Twitter. Canada needs more titans like Mike Volker and Jim Estill.
  3. Deal Discipline: Great companies grow and scale partly because of external motivations. In the 1990’s the hottest companies all wanted to do an IPO and that involved a playbook of enhanced management, systems and processes that also helped the companies scale into better organizations. VCs also played a part, but today, this role often falls onto Angel investors, hence requiring a more “institutional” approach versus becoming just another retail asset class.
  4. Co-investment: Government funding has been critical to our success and it is key that funding increasingly backs Angel choices rather than governments having to choose winners. That said, there is plenty of room for more. For example, our Feddev IBI program in Ontario provides a 50% match while the almost identical “Double Equity” program in Austria does a 100% match to angels. And, the Angel Tax Credit, so common internationally, in parts of the US and in BC, would provide a much-needed boost to overall Angel resources.
  5. Operational Innovation: Currently, most angel groups run as nonprofits using largely committed volunteer deal structuring and with little automation of the process. A big reason for this is Securities Regulations, especially in Ontario, that put a chill on innovations that might trigger an expensive regulatory burden. While there is some hope that the proposed Equity Crowd Funding rules might provide the clarity for such innovations, there is also the risk that this is a force that further pushes deals into a retail mode when what we need instead is more institutional discipline.

With these key points in mind, and assuming the right environment, I have no doubt that greater innovation in business models will fuel growth of a larger and more sustainable Canadian angel landscape. All of us can play our part. To dial up our game, will be an aggressive, yet I believe achievable challenge. And, we need even better measurement so we can regularly monitor, and report back to ecosystem participants, our progress.

The road forward isn’t just about traditional business. Because Angel investors’ motivations uniquely straddle the ever-blurring boundary between “passion capital” and Wall Street-style finance, Angel investing will increasingly be a great exemplar of Social Innovation. To me, the culture of collegiality and sharing resembles my experiences in nation-building around charitable foundations.

The last five years have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of Canadian Angel investing and we are poised for even more remarkable growth in the next five. In the words of the incomparable Alan Turing,

“We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done”.

Now, let’s get to work …

 

By: , , , , , , , , , Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
20120613-Round13Capital800-1

14 Jun 2012

0 Comments

Who Will Revive Canadian Venture Capital (Part I)

Today was a banner day for announcements involving a reset of the technology funding ecosystem in Canada.

For a long time, the slow demise of Canadian Venture Capital has concerned me deeply, putting us at an international disadvantage in regards to funding and building our next generation of innovative businesses. You may recall my 2009 post Who Killed Canadian Venture Capital? A Peculiarly Canadian Implosion? which recounts the extinction of almost all of the A round investors working in Ontario.

Since then, many of us have worked to bridge the gap by building Angel Networks, including Golden Triangle AngelNet (GTAN), where I chair the Selection process and using extreme syndication and leverage to replace a portion of the missing A rounds.

Today, the launch of Round 13 Capital revealed a new model for venture finance centred around a strong Founder Board whose members are also  LPs, each with a “meaningful” investment in the fund.  My decision to get involved was based both on this strongly aligned wealth of operating wisdom coupled with the clear strength of the core team.

The launch was widely covered by a range of tech savvy media, including:

To illustrate the both the differentiation of Round 13 and show the depth of founder experience, Bruce Croxon, indicated that the founders board has, measured by aggregate exit value, built over $2.5 billion of wealth in Canada. It is this kind of vision and operational experience that directly addresses the second of my three points that Canadian Venture Capital needs to solve.

It is exciting to be involved with the unfolding next generation funding ecosystem for technology companies of the future. Time will tell the ultimate outcome,  but I’m certainly bullish on Round 13.

By: , , , , , , , Tags: , , , , , , ,
ring_of_people-858x400-1

3 Apr 2012

0 Comments

Social Innovation – Can Social Sector Learn from Tech Startups?

It is notable that much of the recent trend towards Social Innovation has come from people who began their careers in technology startups, in Silicon Valley or other technology clusters. Some notable examples include:

Bill Gates, partly at the instigation of Warren Buffet who added his personal fortune to that of Gates, left Microsoft, the company he built, to dedicate his life to innovative solutions to large world issues such as global health and world literacy through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Started by Paul Brainerd, Seattle-based Social Venture Partners International  is innovating at the intersection of technology and venture capital, with Venture Philanthropy. Paul sold Aldus Corporation (an innovator in desktop publishing applications, including Pagemaker) to Adobe  in the mid 1990s.  In his mid-40’s at the time of the Adobe acquisition, he was young enough to seek a significant and active social purpose in his life.

Jeffrey Skoll, a Canadian-born billionaire living in Los Angeles and an early employee of eBay, has numerous activities aimed at Social Innovation including Skoll Foundation, Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship and Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship. Most of his initiatives are aimed at empowering the individual Social Entrepreneurs  who are fuelling a new generation of Social Innovation.

Waterloo’s own Mike Lazaridis aims to transform our understanding of the universe itself by investing hundreds of millions of dollars into Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physicsn  and Institute for Quantum Computing, effectively innovating a new mechanism of education and discovery. Notable is that this area of investment is one that may well take years, possibly decades, to show what breakthroughs, if any, are discovered.

Whether or not always attributtable to this connection with technology entrepreneurs, increasingly Social Sector organizations are starting to become much more like the entrepreneurial startups so familiar in the world of high technology. I’ve personally witnessed some of this change, and would like to suggest, that while there remain big differences, the parallels are strengthening over time. The following concepts represent just a small sampling of the key areas of similarity:

1. Founders Versus Artists

Stories are legion of smart, brash (and even mercurial) technology company founders who transform a business sector through the sheer strength of their wills. Many of these founders are “control freaks” and might find employment in conventional jobs a difficult proposition. Venture capital and angel investors have learned to be wary of such founders, citing numerous examples of founderitis – in which uncoachable founders, in a case of “my way or the highway” would rather maintain control than bend to ideas from often more experienced mentors, board members and investors.

Such personalities also exist in the Social Sector. For example, many arts organizations are founded by bright and innovative artistic directors. And yet, many of these same organizations come unravelled by the same mercurial nature that prevents the organization from being properly governed and accountable to funders (investors). With my background on both sides of this divide, the parallels are hauntingly striking.

Since such founders strengths can also be their undoing (or that of their organization), a conscious Board level assessment of such situations is always wise.

2. Running on Empty

Notwithstanding the media coverage of a few lucky technology startups such as Facebook or Google, most technology startups run of little or no significant funding. Many seek to change the world with very small amounts of capital, sometimes no more than several million dollars. The recent trend towards building such small capitalization organizations is called the Lean Startup movement. The challenges inherent in their undercapitalization is often the top complaint of such startups. However, Sergy Brin, the Google co-founder has insightfully observed that “constraints breed creativity” to describe how an underfunded state has led to the discovery of innovative ways to build companies and deliver their products.

Likewise, from my experience the vast majority of charities and nonprofits complain about being undercapitalized, and the reality is that most are. It is a fact of life in the social sector. Only now are we starting to see the emergence of social ventures, which by stealing a page from underfunded technology startups are exploring new business models and ways to deliver social change, often leveraging IT or a different process to vastly reduce costs of program delivery.

3. Technology Changes Everything

We’ve seen the emergence of a world where all information is stored in digital form and people are connected, even while mobile, the role of the web and technology can’t be underestimated. Technology-based startups, because they are small and start from scratch, often approach traditional problems in very non-traditional ways. Revenue and funding models change, as do fundamental ways to organize a business or social enterprise. Social media allows ideas to spread in a viral fashion. We have already seen how organizations like Avaaz can mobilize hundreds of thousands or even millions of supporters globally for both local and international issues of social injustices and poverty. This is a direct analogue to how many people now rely on Twitter or Facebook, rather than a printed newspaper, for much of their news and information.

4. Mission Creep – or the path forward

Technology startups have come to learn that success depends on laser sharp focus, attention to detail and execution of a “pure play” strategy (ie. only do one thing well). Thatparticular discipline has time and time again proven to be effective in a sector where technology change is moving rapidly and most startups are generally considered to be underfunded.

Likewise, Social Enterprises must adopt similar approaches to deal with underfunding and change. Even in today’s more fluid and fast-changing environment, to avoid deadly Mission Creep, Board and management must have developed a complete Theory of Change roadmap to enable Manage to Outcomes.

By: , , , , , , , , , Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
money-v-passion

5 Feb 2010

0 Comments

Ignite Passion before Money

This week I had the pleasure to be the luncheon speaker during the Ignite Entrepreneurship course put on by Guelph Partnership for Innovation,  aimed at University of Guelph graduate students from various technical fields including biology, life sciences, materials, agribusiness, etc.

It’s always a thrill to get into a room with 40 or so energetic and bright grad students who are considering going into business. And, kudos to GPI for hosting this.