Connect with us

Business

Sequoia Capital and the evolution of the VC industry

Published

on

Sequoia Capital and the evolution of the VC industry

You can enable subtitles (captions) in the video player

[MUSIC PLAYING]

TABBY KINDER: Sequoia, like a lot of firms in Silicon Valley, is facing this really pivotal, transformational moment.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: In any downturn, it’s going to be painful for everybody.

Advertisement

TABBY KINDER: And it’s a really important moment for firms like Sequoia, because they have held this gold standard of VC for so long.

GEORGE HAMMOND: It’s a story about Sequoia, but it’s a story about venture capital. It’s a story about how the industry has grown, and it’s going to have to shrink.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: When you invest in startups, it’s going to be rock and roll. It’s going to be a bumpy road. It’s not a smooth thing. This is an active, gloves off, combative form of investment.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: Why Sequoia itself is important is because it embodies the VC industry and who Silicon Valley is.

Advertisement

TABBY KINDER: Sequoia Capital is one of the most venerated venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. It’s 50 years of investing expertise, investing in early stage companies, and betting that some of those companies will become unicorns worth over $1 billion or become even more successful listed companies.

GEORGE HAMMOND: The firm has invested in Apple, Oracle, Cisco, Atari, Google, Yahoo, PayPal, Airbnb, and YouTube, and Instagram, and OpenAI.

BROOKE MASTERS: Companies they backed right now make up 25% of the NASDAQ, which is the tech-heavy index. That just tells you just how crucial they have been to the growth of technology and innovation in the US.

TABBY KINDER: Venture capital is the backbone of the Silicon Valley ecosystem. It’s how companies like Google, like Facebook are founded, essentially.

Advertisement

ORTENCA ALIAJ: And it has the good sides, which is that it’s fueling this new technology. But there are also the bad sides, not just of Sequoia, but of VC investing, which encourages this sort of fake-it-until-you-make-it attitude amongst entrepreneurs. And that’s where you can have big problems like Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX.

GEORGE HAMMOND: Before artificial intelligence captured the imagination of every investor in Silicon Valley, cryptocurrencies with a major boom and the major area of focus.

LARRY DAVID: Eh, I don’t think so. And I’m never wrong about this stuff. Never.

GEORGE HAMMOND: And Sequoia were not one of the earliest into crypto. They were a little bit sceptical as investors compared to some of their major rivals. Andreessen Horowitz, one of their biggest rivals, really went full speed ahead into crypto– so quite a setback.

Advertisement

And then when it seemed like crypto was really going up and up and up, they decided to make a big investment into a cryptocurrency exchange called FTX. And they invested $225 million in 2022.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: At the time, Bitcoin was one of the most popular assets. And there was not a clear-cut way for big investment firms to go into cryptocurrency. So once SBF, if I can call him that, came into the scene, that was when people started to legitimise the business. He was seen as this person who was going to institutionalise cryptocurrencies. And, of course, the opposite ended up happening.

TABBY KINDER: The question after FTX failed was, really, how a firm like Sequoia, with so much experience, 50 years of investing expertise, some of the best venture capitalists in the business working at that firm, how they could have got it so wrong and what that says about the diligence done by VC funds over their investments more generally.

REPORTER 1: Venture capital powerhouse Sequoia telling investors this morning that it’s splitting up into three separate and independent partnerships.

Advertisement

GEORGE HAMMOND: In the last few years, Sequoia has undergone more changes in a shorter amount of time than it has done probably at any other point in its history. Perhaps the most prominent of those was the separation of Sequoia’s US, and European, and Chinese, and Indian businesses.

TABBY KINDER: Sequoia was one of the biggest and boldest entrants to China by a Silicon Valley VC firm. It set up this huge fund. It employed Neil Shen, one of, really, the best start investors in China, to launch its China practise. And for the last couple of decades, it really has had, of all the Silicon Valley firms, the best and largest China presence.

GEORGE HAMMOND: They made the decision to split the firm. It’s a major decision. This was a venture capital firm who was more globally expansive than any other, who was more successful at being globally expansive than any other. They’re retrenching in a very meaningful way.

And, simultaneously, they carved out their Indian operations. And so now what was this massive global business is a US and European-focused entity– so very different in its outlook, in its focus, in its investment area, and a much smaller firm than it was. The Chinese business was managing more than $50 billion in capital.

Advertisement

And so that is now a distinct entity called Hongshan.

TABBY KINDER: Sequoia US, which is now Sequoia, they own some Chinese companies still. So Sequoia is still an investor in ByteDance, which is a really interesting investment for it, given that TikTok is facing a ban in the US.

BROOKE MASTERS: ByteDance is a really important investment for the firms that are in it because it owns TikTok, which is this wildly successful video site that is incredibly popular with young people, many investors believe is the future, or at least the near future, for advertising and social media. And so if ByteDance is forced to sell TikTok, it’s not clear how that’s going to affect ByteDance’s shareholders.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: There’s been these series of well-publicised setbacks– ironically, well-publicised because Sequoia is so good. And I would tend to view these setbacks, I’m talking about the FTX investment, I’m talking about having to cut off the China business because of the geopolitics– and I think what determines the future for Sequoia is how skillfully they capture the next technology wave.

Advertisement

REPORTER 2: The area also supports a variety of light and heavy industries. Investment capital from the city and other parts of the country supports hundreds of pioneering high technology companies in the so-called Silicon Valley, just south of the city.

[EASY MUSIC PLAYING]

GEORGE HAMMOND: Conceptually, it emerged in the 1970s. And it’s called Silicon Valley because of the enormous amount of silicon required to power the semiconductor industry. And it has really been the epicentre of US technology and global technology.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: In the 1950s and ’60s, Arthur Rock, a financier from New York, showed up in what was then just the Santa Clara Valley, not Silicon Valley, and financed Fairchild Semiconductor, which kickstarted the tech ecosystem on the West Coast. And it was that introduction of risk capital which turned a bunch of disparate engineers into a bunch of people who actually formed a company.

Advertisement

Right at the beginning of the venture capital story on the West Coast, Arthur Rock set up an office right in San Francisco downtown. But the second wave in the 1970s, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia, clustered around the Stanford campus, and particularly on Sand Hill Road. And there was a real estate developer at the time who opened up some new office space on Sand Hill Road and made these people welcome. And so it began a tradition.

ILYA A. STREBULAEV: So if I ask you, what are the largest companies that were created in the last 50 years, OK? Well, that would be, you can say Apple and FedEx, OK, all happened just at that point in the 1970s, and it coincided with the rise of the venture capital industry. OK?

And, moreover, I mentioned the ERISA Act, which, effectively, allowed pension fund money and then other money to flow in into riskier assets. And, by the way, from the very beginning, it was not just in Silicon Valley. It was also in Massachusetts.

It was also, at some point, in North Carolina. But Silicon Valley became, very quickly, the hotspot of the venture capital industry.

Advertisement

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: Of course, it helps in California that non-compete laws could not be enforced. And, therefore, you could pull somebody out of one company, put them into a new company. They would leave one company on a Friday, and on Monday morning, there they are in the new company.

That would have been illegal in Massachusetts. But what differentiated the two was that you had much more aggressive venture capital on the West Coast.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: Sequoia Capital was started in the early-1970s by Don Valentine. He was sort of seen as this very kind of humble person. He is amongst the few who hasn’t named his company after himself.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: He had been a water polo player and had the physique to go with that. And he’d been a semiconductor salesman as well. And because he’d been on the sales side, he chose to specialise not necessarily in really cutting edge technology, but in the commercialization of existing technology.

Advertisement

And so, often, the people he backed were kind of crazy business people like Steve Jobs doing Apple, the crew who did Atari, the early game company, that did games like Pong– you walked into their factory, and everyone would get high just from walking around because people were just smoking dope on the production line. These were some pretty wacky founders.

And Atari, for example, would say to their investors, if you want to talk to us, you have to come in this hot tub– take your clothes off and sit in this hot tub. And the good thing about Don Valentine was he wasn’t frightened. And when he took his shirt off, because of that water polo playing I told you about, his authority went up, not down.

And so he was able to look at these crazy founders in the eyes and say, listen, you’re going to take it from me. You’re doing something wrong here. Do it this way, not that way. So he pioneered a hands-on model of venture capital investing, which became central to the model later on.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: Don Valentine had this idea that he didn’t want your classic Harvard Business School graduate to join the firm. He wanted to venture out of that, for want of a better word, and find people who were kind of wonky. And the two people he found who eventually ended up co-leading the firm were, actually, extremely different from each other. So you have Michael Moritz, who’s this Oxford-educated guy who then moves to America to work as a journalist for “Time” magazine.

Advertisement

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: Don Valentine’s sort of tough guy style of almost boasting about firing company founders, when capital becomes more plentiful, then all the capitalists have to compete to be charming to the startup founders. And threatening them with being fired became a very bad business idea.

And so it’s fitting that Michael Moritz, who had a smoother style, became, basically, the number one after Don Valentine retired. Doug Leone is a slightly different character, much more of a sort of tough guy– again, he once boasted to me that he went to the dentist and had his tooth drilled without anaesthetic just to prove he was tough enough to withstand the pain.

He had an unbelievable work ethic. He was famous for just relentlessly following up, doing calls at 5:00 in the morning, at midnight at night, getting on planes to China the whole time.

GEORGE HAMMOND: Sequoia have managed to have success over generations. Don Valentine founded Sequoia in 1972. He hands over the reins to Mike Moritz and Doug Leone in 1996.

Advertisement

Roelof Botha joins Sequoia in 2003. He’s hired by Michael Moritz, who at that point is managing partner of Sequoia. And he rises through the ranks. He’s invested in various very successful companies, including YouTube, MongoDB. And he becomes the managing partner of the US and European business in 2017. And in 2022, he steps up to lead the whole firm. This is the global business as was before it split off.

BROOKE MASTERS: Sequoia, like many other great investment firms founded in the 1970s, has been undergoing generational change. Where the founders and the early success stories are getting older. They’re moving on. And they are having to transition to different leadership.

And, in many places, it’s been quite bumpy. It’s complicated. That doesn’t mean they won’t come through with great success. It’s just generational change is awkward.

GEORGE HAMMOND: One incident that brought that to light was a board level conflict at Klarna, which is one of Sequoia’s biggest European investments. It’s a buy now, pay later company. It was once Europe’s most highly valued startup.

Advertisement

Effectively, what had happened was that Sequoia’s partner on the board, a man called Matthew Miller, had tried to remove Sequoia’s former managing partner, Michael Moritz, who remained as the independent chairman of Klarna– had tried to move against him and have him removed from the board.

TABBY KINDER: Former partner Mike Moritz, one of the biggest veterans investing in Silicon Valley, when he left the firm last summer, he maintained a board seat at Klarna and at many of the other companies where he had led Sequoia’s investments and had become very close to the founders of those companies over time.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: You almost have the physicality of the old guard, the new guard butting heads. And, of course, this spills out into the open. And it also emerges that Matthew Miller did this with the knowledge and backing of Sequoia, which stings even more for Moritz. And, eventually, I think Sequoia see that this has become a public relations disaster. And even though they say, we’ve resolved this, we don’t want to hear any more about it, this becomes another episode, which, I think, starts to make investors feel uncomfortable about what exactly is going on at Sequoia and why this fabled firm is suddenly having these boardroom scraps with former and current employees.

TABBY KINDER: This new generation of venture capitalists at Sequoia have already made some very bold and large bets. Roloff was really fundamental in Sequoia making an investment in Twitter when Elon Musk took it private. And Roloff used to work with Musk at PayPal. They’re very close. Sequoia has other links to Elon Musk.

Advertisement

GEORGE HAMMOND: That has been part of the reason why Sequoia has invested in multiple of Elon Musk’s ventures, including his tunnel-digging company, the Boring Company, his rockets company, SpaceX, and, more recently, Sequoia put $800 million into Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022.

TABBY KINDER: So far, we just don’t know how successful that investment is going to be. I mean, Twitter is now valued at a fraction of the price that Elon Musk paid for it. What we don’t know is how successful Elon Musk will be in turning Twitter around. And if he can turn it into a successful profit-generating business again, then it will be a rosy investment for Sequoia. But at the moment, it looks very uncertain.

GEORGE HAMMOND: Sequoia struck gold on a number of early investments. So its first investment was Atari, some other very notable investments Apple, Google, these companies which became absolutely huge and, in quite short order, returned huge amounts of money for Sequoia and its own investors. And once it had done that, particularly in the world of venture capital as it was, which was more of a cottage industry 30, 40 years ago, certainly, Sequoia had an incredible brand on which to trade.

And once you have that brand, every start is going to think, right, this is the venture capital firm that I want investment from, because as soon as I have this logo on my company, others are going to think, this is a serious startup, and we should take them seriously.

Advertisement

YASMEEN BUTT: Right now, we are hosting a tech weekend, which is a three-day event. We do this every five weeks. 200 to 300 founders come over from different states and different countries. The VC mixer idea was that just easy access to VCs in a very short period of time in a location. And we also kept it very transparent. We told people exactly which funds are coming.

NATHAN BECKFORD: So, is it a dream to be funded by the Sequoias of the world? Yes. That’s an easy softball question. Yes, it is. I mean, the credibility that comes from being funded by a Sequoia, or Kleiner Perkins, or Andreessen Horowitz is huge.

It’s a nice stamp of credibility on your vision. It helps you with recruiting. And it helps you with finding co-investors, right? Everyone wants to do a deal with Sequoia, so you’re going to have a lot of other choices and options as a founder if you’ve got Sequoia on your cap table or leading around.

ARMAAN SAINI: I’m not going to lie that everybody’s ideal goal is to get funded by a tier one– Sequoia, Andreessen Horowitz, General Catalyst. And so funds like this, they have deep relationships, pockets, and can really help your business along.

Advertisement

FARID FADAIE: You need that X factor that helps you grow. That X factor could be the fame of the VC– because if they invest, oh, Sequoia invested in you, there should be something about it. Let’s test it. Because they have a big network, they have a brand recognition– even just them investing in your company will give you a boost.

NATHAN BECKFORD: One of the common themes and common responses I get from founders is, optimise for the best fit with the investor, not necessarily the brand name, or valuation, or terms. You’ve got to find the investor that you can work with and that is going to help you.

And that isn’t always the big brand firms. Some of the newer venture funds are hungry. They’re going to work a little harder, maybe, to build their brands because they’re unproven. And that can be a good choice, too.

So, yes, you still want to take a check from Sequoia if you can. But if they’re not the best fit for you, that’s OK, too.

Advertisement

GEORGE HAMMOND: When Sequoia was founded, venture capital was really a cottage industry. It was a few dozen firms. In the last 10 or 15 years, the number of venture capital firms in the US has quadrupled. And Silicon Valley has been the epicentre of that, but now Austin, New York, other parts of America also have a real ecosystem. And that has completely changed the nature of the market.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: If you’re a venture capitalist, it’s much, much bigger than it used to be. And it’s gone global at the same time. So it makes sense that there should be more venture capitalists with more money. But, of course, it’s also possible that there could be too many, that even though the opportunity set has grown, let’s say it’s multiplied by 10, if you multiply the number of venture capitalists by 20, you’ve got a problem.

You’ve got too many investors chasing too few deals. They’re going to bid too hard to get into the deals. They’ll overprice the deals. And then you’ll have a bubble. And we’ve just seen one.

BROOKE MASTERS: There’s been a real shift since 2021 for the venture capital industry. Back then, everyone had money to invest from investors and was just throwing it at companies. Since then, with higher interest rates, investors have become more sceptical about handing their money over to venture capital because they can get good returns with a lot less risk.

Advertisement

At the same time, the IPO and M&A markets have been largely closed, making it hard to get money out of venture capital and back to investors. So those two things have combined to mean that many venture capital firms have much less money to invest and many less profits to show. So it’s a really challenging time.

TABBY KINDER: Venture capital has, for decades, been a really elite form of investing. And it’s been considered to be quite closed. It’s difficult to get in. Venture capital firms take all of their money from institutional investors like pension funds, university endowment funds.

But in the last few years, there’s been a sort of widening of the industry where big public investors, like, for example, Tiger, SoftBank, come in and create venture capital funds to put money to work in private startup companies.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: I think it’s important to note that Sequoia’s business, the nature of its business, at least, changed with the rise of firms like SoftBank, because you are trying to get a good valuation on the business. And if you have a behemoth like SoftBank just throwing money at these companies at insane valuations, it’s very hard to compete.

Advertisement

So either you miss out on what could potentially be a good investment because you’re not willing to match that valuation, or you go along with it and you become part of this bubble where the valuations keep getting bid up. And we’ve seen how that’s played out, right? It hasn’t played out great for companies as the interest rate environment has changed.

ILYA A. STREBULAEV: These days, there is more competition, a lot more investors, there is a lot more money at play. Also, it’s easier to enter the market.

Venture capitals nowadays compete both with corporate venture capital funds. They compete with sovereign wealth funds and mutual funds in late stages. They compete with micro VC funds, with angel investors at the early stages. And so this, I think, gives rise to some behaviour that is challenging.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: I think FTX was driven by the FOMO, the fear of missing out, mentality. And at the time, Bitcoin was one of the most popular assets. And there was not a clear-cut way for big investment firms to go into cryptocurrency.

Advertisement

BROOKE MASTERS: Stories like what happened with FTX, where it turns out to have been a complete fraud, grow out of this environment where every one of the entrepreneurs, or certainly a huge number of them, are overstating what they are going to be able to accomplish. And the venture capitalists kind of bake that in.

It makes them a little bit vulnerable to actual out and out frauds, because they know even the best companies, run by the entrepreneurs who are really smart, probably are slightly overstating. And so their scepticism is built into their model, which is that they don’t expect all of these companies to come good. So they don’t need to actually check that every single one is as legitimate or living up to its claims.

GEORGE HAMMOND: For Sequoia, losing $225 million in the context of their gains elsewhere, is manageable. But reputationally, it was a blow. Because it was Sequoia, because it was this storied 50-year-old firm who didn’t make mistakes, who were very smart, very savvy, and quite cautious, they put their hands up and said, we made a mistake. And they’ve tried to move on from it.

But it coloured their cryptocurrency investment strategy. And I think for some investors in the firm, it was, for the first time in a long time, just a question mark over some of the decision making at Sequoia.

Advertisement

BROOKE MASTERS: Venture capital investing is a little bit like throwing darts at a dart board. You do not expect all your bets to come good. A successful venture capital firm might back 100 firms, of which only 10 are profitable, and of those 10, one makes it enormous.

But they expect a lot of failure. So it’s built into their model. And so when they back companies, they know that a lot of them aren’t going to come good. They just don’t know which one is going to be the star.

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: There’s a temptation where people say, oh, look, three things went wrong. Three things make a trend. Oh, there must be some systemic crisis here.

But, really, the three things that one could point to are pretty much unconnected, right? There was a geopolitical rift between the US and China, so Sequoia needed to separate the China business from the US business. And that’s just politics. That’s global politics.

Advertisement

It’s nothing to do with bad investments or whatever. Then, you’ve got a massive crypto bubble in 2022 that bursts, and people across the industry got hit. 20 different venture capital businesses were invested in FTX.

And then, yes, there was a boardroom fight at Klarna. But there are board fights in lots of startups. PayPal was nothing but one big long board fight. And sometimes, actually, the staff were fighting each other, pretty much, with their fists. So it was a mess, but it was still hugely profitable. And when it was sold to eBay, the VCs made a tonne of money.

BROOKE MASTERS: Despite the various bumps in the road, the fact that Sequoia has been able to get $10 billion back to its investors in 2023, which was a very tough year for venture capital, shows that it remains a healthy and thriving firm.

We are at the start of another big investment rush into artificial intelligence. Everybody, including Sequoia, is rushing to find the next big winner out of AI. 60% of Sequoia’s current investments are AI.

Advertisement

SEBASTIAN MALLABY: Artificial intelligence is at a point where, let’s say, the mobile smartphone ecosystem was around 2007-2008. So the iPhone came out in 2007. The App Store was created in 2008.

WhatsApp and Instagram didn’t come until 2009 and 2010. So it always takes a little while after the new platform is created before you get the new startups that are going to go to more than a $1 dollar valuation based on this new opportunity. And that’s where we are today with AI.

BROOKE MASTERS: And they are hoping that they will, once again, have picked the winner and be riding this train to great success. But there’s also a good chance that a bunch of this money is being wasted. And so if you get lucky and you get the right company, this could be an incredible gusher for investors. It could also be really disappointing.

ORTENCA ALIAJ: Sequoia is still in a strong position. You don’t build up that reputation for, what, five decades, and then all of a sudden three or four mishaps happen and no one cares about you anymore. That’s not the way it works.

Advertisement

What is interesting to see, and it, honestly, applies across all industries, is how you adapt to the changing interest rate environment and how nimble you can be with geopolitical tensions. And that’s where it really matters.

GEORGE HAMMOND: It’s a story about Sequoia, but it’s a story about venture capital. It’s a story about how the industry has grown, and it’s going to have to shrink. And it’s a story about how you continue to be at the top of your game for 50 years against the backdrop, which is so different to what it was five years ago, 10 years ago, and, certainly, 50 years ago. And it’s a story about whether they can do that under a new management team without the people who were synonymous with that period of huge success for the firm.

BROOKE MASTERS: Overall, I think what the Sequoia story tells you is that the VC industry is under pressure. The way its model used to work is starting to shift. That doesn’t mean it’s fatally wounded, but it is adjusting. And so this is the industry growing up.

TABBY KINDER: Even despite FTX, despite what we’ve seen with Klarna recently, Sequoia still has maintained this sense that it is very much still the best in the business. It’s still the fund that if you are starting a company, you’re desperate for investment for.

Advertisement

But what we’re seeing with this kind of generational shift, this change in the market, with new investors coming in, new industries to invest in, the potential of AI, for example, being completely unexplored, and we’re yet to see how that plays out, the top dogs of the last 20 years, 10 years from now, could easily be unseated.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

CryptoCurrency

‘If They Say “I’ve Got Three Kids,” I Don’t Care,’ Says Kevin O’Leary. Claims 70% Of His Returns Come From Women-Led Companies. Here’s Why

Published

on

'If They Say "I've Got Three Kids," I Don't Care,' Says Kevin O'Leary. Claims 70% Of His Returns Come From Women-Led Companies. Here's Why


'If They Say "I've Got Three Kids," I Don't Care,' Says Kevin O'Leary. Claims 70% Of His Returns Come From Women-Led Companies. Here's Why

‘If They Say “I’ve Got Three Kids,” I Don’t Care,’ Says Kevin O’Leary. Claims 70% Of His Returns Come From Women-Led Companies. Here’s Why

Kevin O’Leary, famously known as Mr. Wonderful from “Shark Tank,” recently shared an unexpected statistic that caught everyone’s attention – in the venture space, 70% of his returns come from companies led by women. He claims there’s a good reason for that.

O’Leary openly shared that he’s learned a lot over the years about where to put his money for the best returns, and his experience has led him to an interesting conclusion – investing in women-led businesses pays off.

Don’t Miss:

Advertisement

He explained that women entrepreneurs often have a strong focus on risk management and an ability to navigate complexities in ways that truly resonate with him as an investor.

“If they say, ‘I’ve got three kids,’ I don’t care,” O’Leary said. To him, the fact that women have multiple responsibilities is a testament to their capability, not a deterrent.

He recognizes that women frequently balance a lot, whether it is work, family, or leading a team, and he views this as a great asset in business. “If you want something done, give it to a busy mother. They balance a lot of stuff in their lives,” he exclaimed.

Trending: One trailblazing female with an expertise in renewable energy built a company that’s bringing the EV revolution to disadvantaged communities — here’s how you can invest at just $500

Advertisement

One key reason for the high returns from women-led companies is their ability to manage risk. He described how women are generally more cautious about growing their companies. They make smart, deliberate decisions rather than going for the high-risk, high-reward play. “They understand risk mitigation,” O’Leary said. This means they are less likely to make reckless decisions, which helps the businesses they run stay on course, even in tough times.

Trending: The global games market is projected to generate $272B by the end of the year — for $0.55/share, this VC-backed startup with a 7M+ userbase gives investors easy access to this asset market.

Another reason O’Leary loves investing in women-led ventures is their tenacity. He shared a story about a female entrepreneur who refused to leave the set of “Shark Tank” without securing his investment. Though he initially doubted her business, her persistence won him over. “She had balls,” O’Leary started explaining vividly, “she just wouldn’t stop, and I thought, if she’s doing this to me, what is she going to do when she gets out there in the real world? She’s a killer.”

Advertisement

That company ended up being one of his most profitable investments. For O’Leary, women entrepreneurs’ passion and drive often translate into great results for investors.

He added that, in his experience, women have an incredible ability to execute and get things done, even when dealing with challenges.

Read Next:

UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets.

Advertisement

Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?

This article ‘If They Say “I’ve Got Three Kids,” I Don’t Care,’ Says Kevin O’Leary. Claims 70% Of His Returns Come From Women-Led Companies. Here’s Why originally appeared on Benzinga.com

© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

CryptoCurrency

One of Wall Street’s biggest bears is turning upbeat on the stock market for the first time in 2 years

Published

on

One of Wall Street's biggest bears is turning upbeat on the stock market for the first time in 2 years


Man in a suit exits the Wall Street subway station

100-hour work weeks are not uncommon, junior bankers saidMomo Takahashi/BI
  • JPMorgan’s top strategist had something positive to say about stocks for the first time in a while.

  • JPMorgan chief equity strategist Dubravko Lakos-Bujas said investors should get less defensive.

  • “While it is too soon to assume that this is a turning point, it does suggest that a recession is unlikely in the near term.”

Strategists at JPMorgan have been bearish on the stock market since October 2022.

But that seems to be changing, based on a Tuesday note from JPMorgan chief global equity strategist Dubravko Lakos-Bujas.

While Lakos-Bujas didn’t update his firm’s year-end S&P 500 price target of 4,200, which implies a steep 27% decline from current levels, he did recommend investors turn less bearish on the market.

Advertisement

“We are neutralizing our long Defensive and short Cyclicals view,” Lakos-Bujas said.

The Federal Reserve cutting interest rates and China unleashing new stimulus measures are driving the change in Lakos’-Bujas’ sentiment.

“Policy support from the world’s largest economies are coming at a time of surprisingly resilient US growth with tight labor markets, ongoing government deficit spending, and record highs across equities, credit, and housing,” Lakos-Bujas said.

The bank also pointed to the solid health of US consumers, who have collectively added $50 trillion to their wealth since Covid.

Advertisement

According to data from the Federal Reserve, US consumers have about $185 trillion in assets, made up mostly of stocks and bonds, homes, and cash, and just $21 trillion in debts. That’s a healthy balance sheet.

Lakos-Bujas is also encouraged by solid corporate earnings growth, which is expected to accelerate from 3% over the past two years to 12% over the next two years.

“US corporates have been increasingly focused on recycling pre-tax income into investment spending rather than returning after-tax profits to shareholders through buybacks, which is also helping to stimulate the economy,” Lakos-Bujas explained.

Part of that has been driven by the AI tech boom, with mega-cap tech companies expected to accelerate their R&D and capex investments to more than $500 billion per year.

Advertisement

“In our view, these drivers, along with US Exceptionalism, are helping offset the uneven macro weakness,” Lakos-Bujas said.

He added: “While it is too soon to assume that this is a turning point, it does suggest that a recession is unlikely in the near term, especially since surprisingly strong job growth and a downtick in the unemployment rate broke a slowing trend in the job market.”

But Lakos-Bujas didn’t turn completely bullish on stocks. The strategist warned that the November Presidential election could inject volatility into markets depending on the outcome, and lower interest rates could represent a headwind for corporate profits, particularly in the financial sector.

Advertisement

Read the original article on Business Insider



Source link

Continue Reading

CryptoCurrency

Blockchain fixes misuse of biometric data — Privado ID founder

Published

on

Blockchain fixes misuse of biometric data — Privado ID founder


Because biometric data cannot be replaced, storing the data requires the highest levels of security, Evin McMullen told Cointelegraph.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

CryptoCurrency

US stocks trade mixed with Fed minutes and rate outlook in focus

Published

on

US stocks trade mixed with Fed minutes and rate outlook in focus


Jerome Powell

Traders are eyeing the release of the Fed September meeting minutes this afternoon.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
  • US stocks traded mixed as investors looked ahead to the central bank’s meeting minutes.

  • The release will offer more insight into what the Fed is thinking about monetary policy and inflation.

  • Traders are anticipating a quarter-point rate cut in November.

US stocks were mixed early Wednesday as traders looked ahead to the minutes of the Federal Reserve’s last policy meeting, which should give further guidance on the path of interest rates for the rest of the year.

All three benchmark indexes traded slightly in the red, while bond yields were up slightly.

Investors will be parsing through the Fed’s latest meeting minutes later on Wednesday, which will give more insight into what central bankers are thinking about the economy and the trajectory of rate cuts this year and beyond. Monetary policy is in focus after an unexpectedly hot job report in September, fueling doubt over whether the Fed will issue another jumbo rate cut this year.

Advertisement

“The minutes of the last Federal Reserve meeting are due, and should be fascinating,” Paul Donovan, the chief economist of UBS Global Wealth Management, said in a note. “The tone of the Fed minutes should not change expectations of further rate cuts—the Fed is still scrambling to catch up with inflation slowing in the US, and started cutting rates late. But expectations about the pace of easing may be set by the minutes.”

According to Pantheon Macroeconomics, the Fed is more likely to begin cutting rates in 25-basis-point increments rather than issuing another 50-basis-point rate cut.

“Even so, we still think the FOMC is putting undue emphasis on the current strength of the economy rather than the direction of travel and the lagged impact of earlier tightening still in the pipeline,” economists at the research firm said in a note. “We expect a 25bp easing in November but think a soft run of jobs and activity data in Q4 and Q1 will soon have the Fed scrambling to avoid falling behind the curve.”

Central bankers will assess another jobs report and the September Consumer Price Index, which will be published Thursday morning, before making their next rate move.

Advertisement

The inflation report will be a high-stakes data point for the Fed after the big September payroll report, with markets anxious that officials may have to turn their attention back to prices after pivoting to the labor market at their last meeting.

Markets are pricing in an 88% chance the Fed will issue a quarter-point cut, while odds of another jumbo-sized cut have been slashed completely, according to the CME FedWatch tool.

Google parent Alphabet fell 1% in early trading as the US Department of Justice indicated it could break up the tech giant.

Advertisement

Here’s where US indexes stood shortly after the 9:30 a.m. opening bell on Wednesday:

Here’s what else is going on:

In commodities, bonds, and crypto:

  • West Texas Intermediate crude oil dipped 2% to $72.06 a barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, was fell 2% to $75.63 a barrel.

  • Gold slipped 0.39% to $2,612.00 an ounce.

  • The 10-year Treasury yield was about flat at 4.041%.

  • Bitcoin edged lower 0.8% to trade at $61,930.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

CryptoCurrency

Nvidia Is Still Undervalued, Says $50 Billion Manager Impax

Published

on

Nvidia Is Still Undervalued, Says $50 Billion Manager Impax


(Bloomberg) — As Nvidia Corp. found itself the target of a deep selloff earlier this year, Impax Asset Management was quietly seizing the moment to build a stake it had long regretted not owning.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Ian Simm, chief executive officer and founder of the $50 billion London-based asset manager, says he and his team had been looking for an opportunity to correct what they had come to realize was a wrong call a few years ago, which meant missing out on Nvidia’s stunning 800% rally since the beginning of 2023.

Advertisement

“We just underestimated the market potential of their product,” Simm said in an interview. Impax had been looking for a way in, but Nvidia “was expensive.” That is, “until it had a selloff.”

Nvidia’s share-price slump earlier this year resulted in a peak-to-trough decline in its market value of close to $1 trillion. Though much of that has since been recouped, Simm says he thinks the company’s current valuation of more than $3.2 trillion understates what it’s really worth.

Established in 1998, Impax has made a name for itself as a giant among asset managers focused on the transition to a more sustainable economy. Simm says that goal should be compatible with making money for his clients. But it’s been a tough sell of late.

Over the past couple of years, a spike in interest rates, an energy crisis and the ascent of the so-called Magnificent Seven of technology behemoths have turned green investing into a losing bet. Impax’s own share price is down almost 30% this year, while the S&P Global Clean Energy Index has lost more than 10%. The S&P 500, meanwhile, is up more than 20% in the same period.

Advertisement

Earlier this week, Impax reported results that showed gains in listed equities of £5.3 billion ($6.9 billion) for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. Still, that was less than the £5.8 billion of net outflows that Impax suffered in the period.

Simm says Impax is learning from the past few years and focusing more on Big Tech, as it looks for undervalued opportunities to generate bigger returns.

“Frankly, we’ve underperformed for the last couple of years in our main strategies because we’ve been more growth-at-a-reasonable-price, staying away from the momentum and hype around mega-cap tech investing,” he said.

Advertisement

As Nvidia’s share price was falling in June, Impax more than tripled its stake in the company to 4.9 million shares by the end of the month from 1.4 million shares at the end of the first quarter, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and confirmed by Impax.

Simm says Impax still considers Nvidia to be undervalued when taking into account how the boom in artificial intelligence is expected to drive demand for its chips.

Simm says holding Nvidia, which like other technology giants needs to consume vast stores of energy to power its growth, also makes investing sense from a climate perspective. As demand for energy continues to increase, Nvidia and other companies that develop more efficient models will be better for the environment, he says.

Nvidia’s Blackwell chips, which are beginning to roll out to customers this year, would need 3 gigawatts of power to develop OpenAI’s GPT-4 software, the company said at an event earlier this month. Ten years ago, that process would have required 5,500 gigawatts, the chipmaker said.

Advertisement

“Nvidia’s ability to deliver energy savings makes it even more valuable,” Simm said.

Impax holds Nvidia in five strategies and funds. That includes its Global Opportunities portfolio, which is limited to 40 stocks and consists of companies that have a diversified business model, operate in high-growth markets and are “out of favor for whatever reason,” Simm said. Microsoft Corp. is included because Impax thinks it’s undervalued “in the context of the secular trend toward more AI,” he said.

In fact, “the whole industrial space” now looks undervalued, Simm said. That may change as a “soft landing in the US” looks increasingly likely, which is helping restore confidence, he said. The cost of capital is falling and consumer sentiment is stabilizing, so equity “is looking more attractive.”

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

Advertisement

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.



Source link

Continue Reading

CryptoCurrency

Palantir now owns nearly 9% of EV startup Faraday Future — here’s why

Published

on

Palantir now owns nearly 9% of EV startup Faraday Future — here's why


Palantir now owns 8.7% of struggling electric vehicle startup Faraday Future, according to a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The data-mining company was granted more than 800,000 shares in the EV startup on October 2 “as payment for certain outstanding receivables” — the equivalent of roughly $2.4 million judging by Faraday Future’s stock price on that day. Palantir doesn’t explicitly say what receivables were outstanding. But the companies quietly entered a settlement earlier this year after the EV startup stopped paying the data company for services it agreed to buy all the way back in 2021.

Palantir revealed the transaction in what’s known as a 13-G filing, meaning it intends to treat the stake passively, so it’s not likely that Palantir will try to hold sway over what little business Faraday Future has these days. The EV company has only delivered around a dozen cars and is constantly in need of new funding.

Advertisement

Instead, Palantir’s stake is a sort of peculiar outcome of the last few years, where so many EV startups rapidly went boom and then bust.

Faraday Future was one of many EV startups that hopped on the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) craze happening at the time. It was rewarded for following the crowd: The startup raised $1 billion when it merged with a SPAC and became a public company.

Palantir played a small part in that process, throwing $25 million into the Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) portion of the merger, where the company going public sells shares to outside companies looking to join the ride. In exchange, Faraday Future signed a commercial contract with Palantir to use the data-mining company’s services. (Palantir did a number of these kinds of transactions — investing in SPAC mergers and simultaneously signing commercial contracts — at the time.) Palantir ultimately sold those shares.

Faraday Future said in 2021 that its partnership with Palantir would help the EV startup “develop disruptive products and services.” But the partnership broke down. Palantir sent Faraday Future a letter in April 2023 alleging the EV startup had breached the agreement, according to SEC filings. The data-mining company claimed it was owed $12.3 million. In July 2023, Palantir filed a demand for arbitration claiming the “amount in controversy” was actually $41.5 million.

Advertisement

The two companies reached a settlement in March 2024. Faraday was supposed to pay $5 million, but $4.8 million of that was still outstanding in August, when the companies amended the settlement. Faraday Future then pledged to pay Palantir $2.4 million worth of company stock in August and again in October.

Faraday Future made that first payment in stock before it performed a 1-for-40 reverse stock split on August 16, meaning Palantir initially didn’t own all that much of the startup. But the second payment came after the split, giving it far more shares and, therefore, a nearly 9% ownership stake.

Neither company immediately responded to a request for comment.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com