Message for Readers

If you find this blog post useful to your work or if you have interacted with me and have found my sharing helpful, you can pay it forward as follows :

1) Share what you know freely to all who are able to listen with no expectation of reward.

2) If you make big bucks, donate some of that to charity and give back to tech by becoming an angel investor or LP. You can learn more about AngelCentral at https://www.angelcentral.co/investors/membership


Showing posts with label SPH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPH. Show all posts

Friday, May 26, 2017

Finally SPH has a new CEO

So SPH has finally changed CEO. Board issued a statement thanking former CEO Alan for his contributions though if we read the quote, it just states what he did without numbers to back it up. Reading between the lines.. it's perhaps the best they can do.

I know how strong SPH position was back in 2002 in the media advertising space. And my general take is that they have grossly underperformed their potential last 14 years. But we don't make decisions on feel but on facts. So let's see if the facts support my gut.

SPH from 2002 ( year Alan was made CEO) to May 2017 has returned about 60% including all dividends. That's a return of 3.3-3.4% annualized. To see if that is a good return, let's compare against 3 metrics. First GDP growth between the same period. Second, the return of STI in the same period. Third ad spend in Singapore between the period.

First, GDP for Sg has increased 230+% between 2002 to 2016. If we assume same proportion spent on advertising, it's clear SPH has failed to keep its proportion of advertising revenue dramatically.

Second, STI index was 1786 jan 2002 and 3219 now. And if we factor in the 3% dividend yield, we are talking about 122% returns. More than GDP and again more than double SPH returns.

Third ad spend in the period grew by about 50+% from 1.5b to 2.3b or so. Harder to find accurate data here. But that's a 53% increase in potential top line for SPH even if they just keep market share of ad spend. But in 2002, SPH had operating revenues of 903m and in 2016 it was 1177m. That's a meager 30% growth in revenues when market grew 50% and GDP grew 233%! And I am being kind to use operating revenue as it includes property.

So the data does show that SPH has underperformed badly under the old Mgmt. As a shareholder briefly via ETF in the period, I must say I would be so pissed with mgmt if I really just held on to my shares.

We have a good quality and well intentioned business and political elite in Singapore. So I am asking our powers that be who own SPH to start calling a spade a spade faster. Not so much faulting the polite face saving departure statement but more of how we can allow such underperformance to last for 15 years. The board should have taken action and removed mgmt earlier.

SPH Mgmt shares is 43.05% owned by govt or govt linked entities with a further 9.5% owned by Dbs which is 30% owned by temasek. The rest are the 2 local banks and Great eastern. So changing CEO is not outright but well within the temasek/govt ability/role.

I really worry for singapore inc if we continue to allow underperformance to be allowed to fester like that. Much of our future economy is tied to our GLCs doing well and growing well while we groom and build up more locally owned enterprises from private sectors. So temasek and Singapore inc needs to be tougher on our CEOs! 

We see other worrying developments happening with Singapore Airlines, Keppel,SMRT, Comfort and Sembcorp Marine who are all being tested by disruption. For now, I still feel our GLCs have a huge important role to play and have proven that our Singapore Inc model works historically but if they don't have high standards of Mgmt to ride on disruption and end up all following SPH path, then I think we might have to admit more private citizen ownership of corporates is a more stable configuration for our future economy. I hope not because so far there are clear benefits to having strong state ownership of GLCs in area of unemployment and stability.


Btw, many people are joking about the incoming CEO. I don't know enough about NOL situation or container logistics market to judge whether he did a good job in NOL and so whether is a good choice or not. But I do know we should hold him tightly to performance of SPH moving forward. It's a tough job to turn around a slowly sinking ship but he needs to figure out fast and reflate those revenue sails. 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Studying the Hardwarezone deal

HWZ was one of the early pioneers of the internet business. They got some funding and were bunch of NUS undergraduates who decided to make their over-clocking hobby site into the CNET or ZDNET of asia. For those of us who have such long memories, HWZ came up in the same timing as firms like AsiaStockWatch, LycosAsia, MyScissors, ejazz, MPHonline etc... crazy stuff in a crazy time. HWZ main leader is Jackie Lee who now runs ClickTrue. Total business guy. Another founder/shareholder is Eugene who is now Snr mgmt in SPH magazines.

So here is what i can see. As usual, best effort basis and do not guarantee accuracy of data.

Business Model : Advertising in niche area of technology media
Platforms : Magazines, HWZ portal + super popular forum
USP : Bundled sales approach, so one stop for media buyers/marketing depts. Cleverly used Forum to boost overall traffic numbers.
Amount Funded : S$2.751M for 1.763M shares
Shareholders : Jackie - 25.9%, Eugene - 8.7% + 2 more even smaller individuals <5%, Angels & VCs - the rest or about 50%+.

Acquisition : Sold to SPH Magazines in 2006 in what was the first M&A of a profitable internet company after the dot com bust and the subsequent cold shoulder the world gave internet companies from 2001 to 2005! The firm was valued at 7.1M in cash up front with i am sure an earnout for subsequent 2-3 year performance. So maybe 10-12M in total? That is about 10 times profit which is what SPH will offer back then. Notice how they have changed tack for sgCarMart deals. really teaches us that timing matters a lot! But cash in pocket is cash in pocket.

2005 P&L is revenue of 5.9M with net profit 1.25M or about 21% net margins. Very good numbers considering it was back then in 2005! They were an obvious first mover and did so well. By then, their forum was already #1 in SG for all topics. I have met a few HWZ people over the years, the original team all good! So why did they not continue to grow the business overseas and scale further? Here is what i think happened - pure conjecture and could be totally wrong.

1)Market size they were reaching market potential in SG and cannot see themselves scaling up much further. HWZ was branching out in Golfing mags and other mags. The comment i have on this is that frequently such mgmt assessments are not too accurate and if we have an innovative and motivated team, there is always new areas to expand into. Also, going regional would also be a good decision since their platform is scalable, they have decent core SG revenues and profit to do so.

2)Founders tired. This one quite likely since i too faced such a situation 7-8 years into business. And perhaps their key mgmt shareholding did not motivate them enough since Angel/VC over 50% stake. A bit like the sgcarmart guys too who had a big passive shareholder. At 12M, Jackie took home 3.1M, not bad for 2006. If he bought a house, it would be worth 6M today. Anyway, whatever their reasons, i always maintain that selling is never wrong since the founders obviously were fine to sell and it is their company. Only they know all the details and situation so my advice is to never second guess yourself once you make a decision.

Fast forward to 2008 which is 2 years later and the HWZ revenue is now 9.3M so revenue growth of 57% over 2.5 years. Many of the HWZ people either have left or are integrated within the SPH Mag family. Eugene himself is now Deputy MD i believe. Jackie is more entrepreneurial so he has cleverly got SPH to own a minority in clicktrue and is out running it as the main founder/shareholder. All in all a good success story for all of us to learn from.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Analysis on sgcarmart deal

Buyer : SPH
Seller : 3 main founders, 2 smaller co-founders, 40% investor JDB.
Terms : $60M cap.

My guess?
 1) 2 year earnout ala Hardwarezone and shareinvestor. But with JDB a savvy player, most likely the earnout is a proportionate one rather than a cliff.

2) 60%, 25%, 15% payout.

Analysis? Deal makes a lot of sense for SPH. It costs a lot to set up and market a new portal and there is no guarantee they will win. See their efforts over the last 10 years on property, jobs and cars. So this way, at least the executives at SPH are sure to win for the next 3 years in the car space. Deal makes sense for founders. A valuation of 11 times sales or 25 times PE is very good and fair. Also, the shareholding does not fully incentivize the working founders as JDB took a big chunk in the early days for a low investment of $800K.

Pitfall? Can SPH integrate and run sgcarmart well together with the all-important founding team? That is the multi-million dollar question. We will wait and see.

Payout? Based on shareholding, gig winner JDB gets 24M pax, each key founder about 9.5M max. The 2 smaller ones less. This assumes max payout of course. Good deal all round.

======================================================================
update after getting hold of their P&L for FY 2012 and combining with SPH reports.

As expected, the deal was a fair one both ways.  I was wrong on payout ratios though.

1) SPH paid 53M already. (see their latest annual report).

2) SGCM profit is 3M net on revenue about 8M give or take. So the 60M valuation is about 20 times historical PE, SPH did not overpay.

Still great deal all round but the valuation is far more reasonable and not a crazy one. So looks like the Hungrygowhere guys still the best deal in terms of valuation multiple.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Unedited Version - First published on Straits Times 1st Jan 2013



Reflections of a Singaporean Dot Com Entrepreneur

Mr Lim Der Shing, 37 is currently the CEO of JobsCentral Group. He co-founded the company in 2000 during the dot com crash and grew it into one of the largest online career media companies in Singapore. JobsCentral was acquired by CareerBuilder in 2011.   He is happily married with three very energetic boys. This article is written in his personal capacity. 

Background
My cofounder & I started work full time on JobsCentral Group during the dot com crash of 2000. It was a tough time as nobody wanted to fund us and so we had to bootstrap our business. I can still recall our first sale which was for $9 and we actually cashed the cheque when we received it.  We paid ourselves a monthly salary of S$500 for the first 9 months. Fortunately for us in 2001, we pivoted our job portal business and found a good niche in campus recruitment. We executed on that plan and managed to bootstrap our business to cross S$1M in sales by 2004.  We also got other co-founders with complementary skill sets to join us in those very early years. 

In 2005, we made a major decision to expand our business back into the job portal business. Leveraging on our 5 years of campus recruitment experience, we expanded quickly and by end 2010, we were one of the largest locally owned dot com with over 1M jobseekers and 10,000 employers using our services. In 2011, we were acquired by the #1 job portal in the USA – CareerBuilder for the price of a small listed company.
Currently, my team and I still run the regional business as professional management. We all give back to the startup community as angel investors and by sharing our experiences as mentors. I have gathered some key learning experiences in my twelve year journey and I would like to share them below.

Attitude & Mindset
I have lost count of how many times I have obsessed over some minor detail throughout the day.  Whether it is a watching out for competitor advertisements, or vexing over a small feature bug or even just checking the site every 30 minutes to ensure applications are working fine. I have found that being obsessive ensures success. I also found that when I am obsessive over my business, the various short and long term problems and issues are percolating in my mind all day long. Then sometimes, as if by magic, a solution or path will present itself that frequently works well for the business. And this usually happens when I am doing something totally unrelated like jogging or even sleeping.

Besides being obsessive, most successful entrepreneurs I know are street smart, curious, very competitive and take failure in their stride. Of course, being well educated helps too. This is especially important when scaling beyond 100 staff as many business school type principles and work process issues start to become increasingly relevant.  

We frequently read about successful entrepreneurs whose core motivation is to solve a problem or scratch an itch. Most I have met are driven to build an empire and many simply like to win. I once had a dinner with a very wealthy entrepreneur and he let slip that there are about fifty families ahead of him in terms of net worth in Singapore. I laughed at that time, but upon reflection, I realized that he is dead serious. Net worth is how many entrepreneurs keep score even if they will not admit it.

Are there many potential entrepreneurs in Singapore with such traits? I believe so. We are a highly competitive, well educated society and are famous for being willing to work hard. We just need more success stories where entrepreneurs of varying educational and economic backgrounds succeed spectacularly. With these role models in place, a safe and well paid job with a MNC will seem less and less attractive.

Team Selection and Management
My team works well together. We have clearly defined roles and the team is willing to report to one person. Each member of the team is better than me in what they do and frequently, all that is needed from me is to get out of the way. What works is to be totally transparent in terms of how each person is paid and also to be transparent when it comes to the accounts of the company. Every year, we collectively review and agree on our own pay and bonuses. Once the trust is built, then we can all focus on improving the business.
I have found that managing a team of talented owner managers requires me to manage my emotions very well. There have been many incidents where I have to swallow my pride or put aside anger or disappointment in order to make sure that the best decision is made for the business. It gets easier with time but it is still very much a challenge. I believe that is why some entrepreneurs chose to do it alone and just pay professionals to do the key functional jobs. You can always remove a professional manager but it is much harder if that person is also a significant shareholder.

Most startups I see today are a team. I think a team makes the most sense still especially if you intend to raise funds. Investors like to know that there is a team that complements each other and that their money is in the hands of not just one person. New startup teams need to have a clear idea of roles. They should decide who is the leader, how will pay be decided and sign a joint legal agreement called a shareholder’s agreement to spell out these details and contingencies.

Fund Raising
Back in 2000, nobody wanted to fund us. We were a bunch of fresh graduates with no money or experience.  As such, we were forced to grow organically with just $100K funding from savings, family and friends.  We built a habit to always be cash flow positive in all we do and to grow at our own pace. We kept focusing on clients and what they needed. Fortunately for us, it worked out well.
The usual silicon valley model is to raise funds via angel investors. Once the product has traction, the company will raise further funds via Venture Capital firms (VCs).  This model works well if the business is very scalable and can grow revenues rapidly. However, after observing and speaking with many local and regional startups, I feel there are not many that can meet the rapid growth and large market criteria for raising VC funds.  Generally speaking, the final exit has to be at least worth S$25M to justify a Series A round at S$5M valuation. The only exception is unless the exit happens in 1-2 years like the Tencube or Hungrygowhere case.

In terms of raising capital up to S$600K, there are many options nowadays thanks to the plethora of co-funding schemes from MDA, SPRING, ACE and NRF. A good skilled team with a viable business model should be able to find funding up to this level. What is missing is the Series A round from S$1M to S$5M.  However, I feel this is a consequence of our market rather than something that the government should step in to help on. Entrepreneurs should use their angel round and grow to justify their next round. Very often, it will mean they have expanded into an overseas market and/or are breakeven or profitable in Singapore already. In both cases, they will need to show a clear path and vision to grow to an eight digit valuation to justify a VC round.  We do not want to waste taxpayers money and end up funding many S$1M to S$5M rounds which cannot scale to the required exit size.

Overseas Expansion
We are a conservative bunch of entrepreneurs. We take only calculated risks.  So we did not expand overseas until 2009 when we were clearly profitable in Singapore with sufficient management resources. We have since expanded into Indonesia this year and will enter more ASEAN markets. Many entrepreneurs expand far more quickly and it depends on many factors like whether they are first movers, expected capital investment, market readiness, management team depth etc.
The current situation is that many startups feel a need to go global from day one. They believe that having a regional story is of utmost importance. To some extent this is true especially if the startup is trying to raise money. However, it would be best to have at least firmed up their home market processes and basic business model first.  This ensures that the business does not end up failing on both home and foreign markets.

Mergers & Acquisitions
We had a grand total of 4 possible buyers during the five year period from 2003 to 2008. What I found out is that the valuations offered by Asian firms are really quite poor compared to western suitors. We were offered valuations that ranged from 5 to 10 times PE even though we were growing at 40% per year. The attitude I found that works best is to not plan for an acquisition. Before we were cold called by our current shareholder, we already decided to just hunker down and build the best possible business. Since we were already profitable, there was little pressure to sell or raise more capital.  This also helped us much when negotiating since we staying happily private was always an option for us.

Today, while there is definitely more activity in terms of M&A in the region, entrepreneurs should always remember to look for clients first before looking for buyers. We need more highly profitable local outfits and/or highly scalable regional/global outfits. Both will then be sought after by different type of global buyers. The exits will be eight, nine or even ten digits. And the founders who exit can then become role models and investors for other startups. 

Contribution to Singapore
I feel strongly that entrepreneurship needs to be nurtured and considered as a career path for all Singaporeans. We want both top students and school dropouts to start up.  By deciding to start a business, my team has generated a hundred new good paying, high productivity jobs for Singapore. We help thousands of employers cut costs by improving their recruitment process and we are now helping spur the digital startup community via our angel investments and mentoring.  Imagine if there are thousands more such stories in all industries doing the same!

The various schemes by ACE, SPRING, MDA and NRF are all on the right track. We need to help locally owned SMEs as much as possible. While most of us may never make the same revenue numbers like an MNC can, some of us will do well and the long term rewards will be substantial. I strongly believe that a Singaporean owned company will stay in Singapore through thick and thin in a way that a MNC will never do. SMEs may expand overseas and sell overseas but the profits will be repatriated and spent via their Singaporean shareholders.  

Mentors & Government Help
I have been fortunate to have met and interacted with many entrepreneurs through the course of the past 12 years. It really is true that not only do we need to meet the right person, ask the right questions but also we must be at the right stage of development and frame of mind to benefit. I have learned the most when speaking to fellow entrepreneurs who run similar sized or larger companies. Talking to professional managers helps when I have a specific functional problem. For instance, during our acquisition process, I consulted accountants and lawyers. They were useful in so far when I was discussing specific points of law or financial terminology. But the best learning points I got were with fellow businessmen who have bought and sold companies and who were able to share from personal experience. 

With respect to the many government grants and funding which are offered to digital startups. I would advice new entrepreneurs to go for them but go with the mindset that even if you fail to obtain a grant, you still have a good plan to succeed. In fact, if we look at recent eight and nine digit exits/investments like PropertyGuru, Reebonz, Beeconomic, JobsCentral, and Hungrygowhere, none of us have taken any form of government funding.  Entrepreneurs should always start with ourselves and blame ourselves if anything goes wrong. I cannot stress this enough. Only when we see ourselves as the root of all our business problems, then can we act to overcome them.