Clarabridge Knows IPOs
February 26, 2016
i read “New Clarabridge Exec Says IPO the Way to Go.” Clarabridge, as you may know, is a customer experience company. There is some synergy between Clarabridge and MicroStrategy, which is in itself a potential topic for a mini-MBA review.
The point in the article which I highlighted in US currency green was this statement:
For his part, Banerjee confirmed Clarabridge is staying on course for an IPO. “We’re accentuating the path toward an IPO,” Banerjee said. “I’ll be tag-teaming with Yuchun.” Lee said he is pleased with the Lee-Banerjee partnership and said Banerjee is “still the visionary.”
Apparently the senior executives know that the time is right to unlock the value of the Clarabridge operation. On February 21, 2016, 24/7 Wall Street reported in “IPOs Continue Slo-Mo 2016 Start”:
Only four companies have been able to go public this year, all biotechs with substantial insider support. Broader market indices are down across the board, and multiples in the tech sector have been crushed. A whopping 74% of IPOs from last year trade below the offer price, and the year’s average return from IPO is -22%.
Does Clarabridge have a Tolkien seeing stone?
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2016
The Intersection of the Criminal, Law Enforcement and Technology Industries
February 26, 2016
A ZDNet article covers Arrests made over Bitcoin laundering scheme, Dark Web drug deals
Dutch police made several arrests related to laundering of criminal profits orchestrated through an unindexed section of the web called the Dark Web. The article says suspects allegedly laundered up to 20 million euros from online drug deals. With the information originating from Reuters, this article summarizes the arrests made by Dutch Fiscal Information and Investigation Service and public prosecution department:
“According to the publication, some of the men arrested are traders, while others are “Bitcoin cashers” — traders of Bitcoin online who cash these funds then withdraw money from ATMs. It is possible to find cashers online who run shadow services which exchange “dirty” coins for clean currency. Law enforcement in the United States, Australia, Lithuania and Morocco also participated in the raid.”
Just as criminal offenses are taking place increasingly online, so too must the law enforcement industry have turn to technology to aid its efforts. As the case unfolds, it will be interesting to uncover how these suspects were identified. Perhaps something innovative will be at the source.
Megan Feil, February 26, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Are Unicorns Selling Their Horns?
February 23, 2016
I don’t think too much about start ups with valuations in the billions of dollars. Most of these companies do not do much business in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. I think more about the local truck stop’s supply of air filters than unicorns.
I did not, however, several items which may provide some insight into life after the slow down in the flows of easy investor cash.
The first item concerns some stakeholders’ efforts to convert their shares into cash. “Secondary Shops Flooded With Unicorn Sellers” reports:
the phones of secondary buyers are beginning to ring with a little more urgency, along with discounted offers of up to 30 percent off companies’ most recent valuations. Partly, such nervousness owes to employees, some of whom are getting laid off as companies cut back on costs in order to lengthen their runway. These former staffers have to exercise their options within 90 days or else lose them, and they’re calling secondary firms for help in figuring out what to do. Some sellers are venture capital firms that thought they could exit some of their investments in 2016 and are now concluding that they can’t.
The second article I noticed was “The £1.8 Billion London Tech Unicorn That’s Struggling to Pay Its Staff Is Worried about Going Bust.” I never heard of Powa Technologies. I learned:
London-based Powa is struggling to pay staff and suppliers. Accounts show it raised a total of $50 million (£34.9 million) last year from investors, but as of February 5, 2016, when the accounts were approved, it only had $250,000 (£174,600) in the bank. Meanwhile, the group owes $16.4 million (£11.4 million).
The unicorn zoo warrants a visit. Are smart unicorns selling their horns in an effort to survive? Are some unicorns starving? What about the pygmy unicorns in the search and content processing markets? How will these tiny creatures fend for themselves. Interesting? Without horns to sell, the baby unicorns may face an unpleasant fate.
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2016
Yahoo Moves Undermine Content Is King Assertion
February 22, 2016
I don’t Yahoo. I did read a coven of content about the slimming down of the original content at Google’s neighbor, Yahoo. A representative write up is “If It’s Wednesday, It’s Layoffs Day at Yahoo: Today, Digital Magazines Get Hit.” The main thrust of this and the other writes up I worked through is that the Xoogler is amputating the arms and legs of its original content business.
Among the casualties are subsites or Web pages about food, travel, real estate, health, and others consumerish topics.
Based on my sample, determined by my fatigue with the Yahoo thing and the speed with which different articles on this subject rendered, is biased. I was able to formulate one notion; to wit:
Yahoo seems to be proving that content, as practiced by Yahoo, is not king.
I thought that content, particularly great content, would produce revenue. Apparently not. The Yahoo cuts suggest that content is not even a baron or an earl. Perhaps content is a wounded vassals? Are those cast out of the Yahoo serfs?
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2016
Google in London
February 19, 2016
I know that the Sun newspaper is not an academic journal. I admit to reading its football coverage once every week or so. Enjoyable stuff.
I noted a example of “real” journalism with the alluring title “Kicked in the Googlies.” I am not sure what a “googlie” is, but the notion of kicking reminded me of football, so I read the article.
I learned that the focus of the story was Alphabet Google. The article presented some interesting “real” journalistic facts; to wit:
- Google’s London office has a dance studio
- There are 5,000 Googlers in the Covent Garden office, which is definitely good news for the vendors next to their stalls selling oddments
- Breakfast, lunch and dinner are free. Well, bad news for the food emporia in the new Covent Garden which was Ludenwic and then became a fruit and veggie garden. The gardens gave way to folks who sported at theatres and ogled other folk.
- Onsite haircuts are available in the event that the locks need trimming.
I liked this phrase:
The company is spending £1billion on a new London HQ which has more in common with a holiday camp than an office.
Whoa, Nellie. The write up reveals that Alphabet Google is proposing a new structure near King’s Cross station. The idea is to include “a meditation room, a running track, a games area, and five massage parlors.”
The point of the article is that these offices (real and proposed) are not permanent. The idea that Google is not paying its fair share of taxes holds the disparate factoids together in a chewy caramel of modern fiscal responsibility.
Interesting write up. I envision the ghosts of medieval life enjoy a return to life as it once was. I say, did we ride our horses through your home? Pity that.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2016
Unicorn Valuations and Paybacks
February 18, 2016
I read “The Terms behind Unicorn Valuations.” Valentine’s Day seemed to be an ideal time to think about billion dollar outfits and those who fund them. Note: I did not get a valentine this year.
The law firm generating the document is a specialist in unicorn analysis. The most recent report represents 2015 data. The major takeaway in my opinion is that 2015 was the Year of the Unicorn. With the Chinese New Year in mind, 2016 is the Year of the Monkey as I recall.
I noted that some investors in unicorns get “downside protection.” I interpreted this to suggest that some folks have a shot at getting some of the money back if their unicorn catches pneumonia or worse. I like the discovery that flexibility may have been used to achieve the $1 billion valuation.
For me the key finding was:
the beginning of the period covered by the survey was markedly stronger than the end of the period covered by the survey.
The economic uncertainty may have been a factor. The report does not dip into psycho socio economic reasons for the dip.
The write up concludes:
companies in need of additional funds might find it necessary to provide new investors liquidation or other rights superior to their unicorn (and other) investors to attract needed capital. This happened frequently when the dotcom bubble burst in the early 2000s. Although the use of structures that reduce or eliminate outstanding investor rights is uncommon during most of the venture cycle, they become more common during significant downturns in the venture economy.????
What about the financing of search and content processing vendors? Only one is a unicorn, Palantir. Worth watching.
Net net: No valentines for those who get bitten by a unicorn.
Stephen E Arnold, February 18, 2016
Alphabet Spells Fiscal Controls
February 17, 2016
I read “Google’s Alphabet Poaches Intel Veteran Jim Campbell as Its First Controller.” My father was a controller at one time. He told me that he was not the most popular person at budget reviews. Gee, I thought he was lovable year round.
Here’s the passage I highlighted:
When speaking about the Alphabet reorg (particularly to Wall Street), the company’s execs have stressed that its intent was to instill tighter financial discipline around its various projects, particularly those outside of core Google, lumped on the balance sheet as Other Bets. “
I like the notion of investments as bets. I wonder if the controller will be able to reign the gambling losses as Google bets. I would bet on death remaining an unsolvable problem. Loon balloons? Pony up.
Stephen E Arnold, February 17, 2016
Venture Backed Search Vendors Face Exciting 2016
February 12, 2016
I read “The State of Venture Capital.” I thought, “Oh, ho, here comes the tightening of the thumbscrews. The idea is simple. Insert fingers and turn the crank. My hunch is that the device will focus the attention of person whose fingers are in the business end of the gizmo.
In the write up, I learned that in the next two years, folks should expect:
- Increased loss ratios
- Most flat rounds
- More down rounds
- More structured rounds
- Relatively harder to raise capital
- VCs marking-to-market showing some movements south
I like the reference to the movement south.
How does this relate to the search and content processing outfits which have sucked in tens of millions in venture funding? Three items for which I will be watching:
- More market repositioning. Think predictive analytics, data lakes, cloud solutions, and artificial intelligence. Talk is cheap. If talk generates a license deal, that’s the upside.
- Downsizing. I know that growth is all the rage, but I think that some vendors will have no choice except cutting back on expenses. Full time hires become contract workers. Trade show participation becomes a webinar which is archived and the promoted as a resource.
- Dance card shuffling. In an effort to generate leads and from the leads some real license deals, companies will join up. Others will departner and find another entity with which to dance.
Which search vendors will survive? The last big shake out winnowed the likes of Convera, Delphes, Entopia, and Siderean. The acquisition boomlet moved Autonomy, Exalead, ISYS Search, and Vivisimo into the safe havens of larger organization. Who will buy today’s market leaders? Other vendors will have no choice but go quiet. The last time I checked Dieselpoint it was still in business. Sophia Search? Intrafind? X1?
Which company is the next Autonomy? Elastic, Recommind, IBM Watson?
My view is that 2016 will be exciting for some folks.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2016
Google Versus Russia: Does Google Have SU 35 Capabilities?
February 6, 2016
I read “Kremlin Considering Google Tax on Technology Services.” The article suggests that Russia may tax online services. The services named include Google, Facebook, and Apple. I know that Facebook works hard to avoid certain conflicts. Apple has its hands full with the specter of not having any hot products in 2016. So the Google?
The world’s most valuable company may have to pay more than a UK “get out of jail” fine if the write up is accurate. I learned from the “real” news source:
Klimenko, an early Russian Internet innovator, was appointed as President Vladimir Putin’s Internet adviser in December. His suggestion of a kind of value-added tax on technology services in Russia comes only days after he asserted that Google, Facebook, and other social-media companies will be blocked in Russia “sooner or later” if they do not comply with a law enacted in August requiring them to locate facilities that store Russia data in Russia. And it comes after Russian news agencies reported that Putin on January 29 signed an executive order asking federal agencies to work with Klimenko on amending legislation to ensure equal operating conditions for companies within Russia with respect to the Internet.
Google may get a chance to demonstrate its potency if Russia boosts taxes. I recall that Mr. Brin’s space flight did not work out. Will this new chess match result in Google’s sitting on the sidelines in Russia?
Worth monitoring. Now about that source and its “real” journalists? Nah, never mind.
Stephen E Arnold, February 6, 2016
Search Unicorns? Nah, Think Search Sasquatches
January 24, 2016
The founder of Salesforce pointed out that some of the stampeding unicorns are going to die. See the frosty thoughts in “Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff Predicts ‘a Lot of Dead Unicorns’ and Cheap Startups to Buy.”
What goes up must come down, right? But the obviousness of the prognostication misses one aspect of the economic snowmageddon.
There are many search sasquatches which have been struggling to survive in the Lucene/Solr landscape. These outfits share some characteristics:
- Histories of low or no profits and revenue challenges
- Fuzzy positioning about what their information access technology does
- Difficulties making clear why proprietary technology is better than open source search technology
- A dependence on venture funding to keep the lights on and the parking lots paved.
Who are some of the proprietary vendors living in the suburbs of unicorn land?
Examples which an intrepid sasquatch hunter might consider fair game are:
- Attivio, a system based on inspirations from Fast Search & Transfer
- BA Insight, a Microsoft centric information access system
- Coveo, a search system once anchored in Microsoft technology
- EasyAsk, proprietary natural language processing. The company has used crowd funding to raise some cash.
- MarkLogic, once considered a unicorn, and now trying to find new revenue as the firm’s original market of publishing faces its own problems
- Sinequa, one of the interesting French search vendors
- X1, a search and discovery outfit with an interesting interface
There are others as well, but few North Americans know about Exabyte, Intrafind, SRCH2, and their ilk.
If Marc Benioff is correct, the information access ecosystem will suffer the type of implosion that occurs when Brazilians chop down the rain forest. Reforestation does occur, but it may deliver a radically different ecological environment. Consultants and installations of Lucene/Solr might be more friendly than the venture capital firms who want their money back.
What is the going rate for the pelt of a search sasquatch?
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2016
Which unicorns and search sasquatches will survive? Where is Darwin when one needs him?
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
