By Michael
Volker
The Great Options Debate, Corp Gov for Tech
Companies, Is Capital in Short Supply (where are the angels)? Tech Bets, Capital
Pool Corps Update, Local Events and Footnotes
In his Technology Futures column, Mike Volker
packs in a lot of goodies in this month's column. He sheds some light on the
great options debate noting that Canadians appear more willing than Americans to
succumb to the call for expensing stock option grants. However, what's not well
understood or agreed to, is HOW this will be done. You might be surprised at
some of the nonsense that's going on. There's a lot of talk about corporate
governance and in the wake of new rules and regulations, it's time for company
boards to take a crash course on this subject. For example, does your board have
a policy on equity monetization? Capital is always a popular subject and in this
column, Mike looks at some new developments, especially on the angel front. What
does it really take to get funded? The column concludes with some market
observations and commentary on local happenings.
The Great Options Debate
The debate over corporate stock options and how
to account for them is heating up. In my September
column, I advocated the abolishment of options altogether (not be
regulation, but voluntarily). I still feel the same way. However, if corporate
boards see fit to use options as part of their company's compensation plan,
they're likely going to have to change the way in which they report this to
their shareholders.
In the U.S., regulators are calling for
companies to voluntarily expense the granting of stock options. In Canada, the
Accounting Standards Board is going further by suggesting that the expensing of
options be made mandatory. The thinking behind this is that options, because
they provide employees with a salary benefit, must be accounted for on the
corporate income statement to more accurately reflect a company's performance.
Interestingly, no Canadian company has spoken
out against the idea of having to expense stock options. However, I like
what Izzy Asper, broadcasting magnate, said at the recent Canadian
Association of Broadcasters conference. He noted that stock options don't
impact a company's bottom line - they are a drain on shareholder value. Think
about it: A company's profitability (ie its corporate performance) is not tied
to the number of shares that are outstanding. True, if there are more shares
(i.e. as a result of stock options being exercised), then the earnings per
share will go down, but not the company's overall P&L performance. If
you buy this line of thinking, companies are effectively already accounting for
options. After all, if more people are sharing the pie, the pieces become
smaller.
Big Corporate America - companies like General
Motors (GM) and General Electric (GE) - are OK with the idea. Silicon
Valley companies like Intel and others like Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)
are dead set against the idea because of their widespread and generous use of
options to attract top talent to their companies. Pivotal Corp (NASDAQ:PVTL),
a local example, stands to suffer a 25% potential dilution if its
outstanding options are exercised.
In the case of Microsoft, the cost, depending
on how you define "cost", of stock options works out to more than a
quarter of the company's profit, according to Don Young, an analyst with UBS
Warburg, one of Microsoft's investment bankers. To Microsoft's credit, the
top honchos don't take personal advantage of options. "We never have taken
options, we never will take options," Bill Gates is on the record as
saying. (Besides, Gates and Ballmer don't really need options because they
already have about 16% of Microsoft, making them two of the richest men in the
world.)
Microsoft's 2001 reported net income of $7.3
billion would have dropped to $5.1 billion if the company expensed options, a
30% decrease, according to its 2001 annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. On a per-share basis, Microsoft's reported
$1.32 earnings per share in 2001 would drop to 91 cents per share if options
were expensed.
The opponents are quick to point out that
valuing options presents tricky problems on which there is no agreement. They
claim that regardless of which approach is adopted, investors will still be
misled by the earnings statement. It will be difficult for companies and
analysts to create any meaningful earnings estimates. Furthermore, messing
around with stock options will discourage their use, doing damage to start-ups
and high tech firms. T. J. Rodgers, a Silicon Valley CEO, calls the
proposals “destructive.” So, say the companies, the logical course is the
current FASB policy -- disclose options as potential dilution (no one disagrees
with that) and let investors apply whatever valuation technique they favor.
GM, one of the companies that is saying
"yes" to the expensing of options notes that it will decrease profit
by some U$130m or U$.24/share in 2005. In addition to GM, A growing number of
large companies such as General Electric, Coca-Cola Co., MetLife, The
Washington Post Co. and Bank One have all announced they will expense
options.
The big question, and one that there's no
general agreement on, is HOW are options to be expensed and WHEN should they be
expensed? If they're expensed at the time they are granted to employees,
companies will take a hit even if those options are never exercised (will the
expense be reversed in this case? Can you imagine the accounting and reporting
headaches this will cause?). Or, should a company expense them at the time that
the employee exercises her option in which case it could use the same formula as
that which is used for calculating the employment income benefit (as reported on
our beloved CCRA's T4 earnings slip)?
One method that has already gained some
acceptance, involves the reporting of an expense which is not an actual cost at
all but some grossly inaccurate estimate of the "fair" value when
options are granted.
This "fair" value can be calculated
using the Black-Scholes option formula. Please note that Myron Scholes
is the Canadian scholar from Timmins, Ont who shared the Nobel Prize in
economics in 1997 for this definitive work on options valuations). This is
an estimate of the approximate "fair value" of newly granted options
if they could be sold and hedged. It is this estimate - not a real cost - that
is about to be considered a cost by companies that adopt expensing.
Jeffrey Garten
recently wrote in Business Week that employee stock options should
"be charged against corporate income when they are cashed in."
Unfortunately, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) won't
allow companies to do that. Instead, rules set down in 1995 by five of the seven
FASB members only permit expensing of an estimate. Good grief!
Many options will expire worthless or will
never be exercised, so why expense them? This is why I like the T4 method. This
is straightforward and is already being calculated by companies when preparing
employment income slips - both in the USA and Canada. Example: if an employee
has 1000 shares that she exercises at $5 when the shares are trading at $10, she
has an employment benefit of $5,000. One could argue that the company has a real
cost of $5,000 because it has "given up" $5,000 in cash that it would
have received had it sold the same 1,000 shares from treasury directly into the
market (i.e. the company would receive $10,000 itself instead of sharing it with
the employee).
This T4 method is really no different than the
practice of writing down a corporate asset. If land or buildings are sold for
less than their book value, companies write off the difference and treat it as
an expense. Shares that are sold off below their true value (in this case book
and market values would be the same on the date of sale) should be similarly
expensed.
One bugaboo about this calculation and, believe
me, it has given lots of tech execs plenty of grief is the value that is used
for determining the "Fair Market Value (FMV)" of the stock. Should it
be the closing (or average) price on the date that the employee gives notice of
her intent to exercise, or should it be the date on which the shares are
acquired? If they're sold immediately one could use the actual sale price. As
I've reported before, CCRA (Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency) compels
optionees to do this otherwise they risk having a subsequent loss which cannot
be offset against the calculated T4 benefit.
Notwithstanding this, many optionees actually
like to become real shareholders and may not sell their shares for many years in
which case an FMV (which also becomes the employee's adjusted cost base for
future capital gains determinations) near the date of exercise would be the best
choice. I would suggest that an FMV which reflects a moving average (30 days or
what?) or a volume-weighted figure be used. As we all know, tech stocks are
especially volatile and within a weekly window prices can fluctuate by
double-digit percentage points!
So, what's wrong with the T4 approach? Well, it
doesn't give shareholders any indication about potential dilution. As I
mentioned earlier, the earnings per share (EPS) already accounts for past
dilutive effects. The simple answer, then, is to use report EPS on a fully
diluted basis. Additionally, companies should, and many do, already report the
total percentage of options grants (as a percentage of issued shares). If
shareholders are aware of both the options overhang (dilution potential) and
the real T4 cost of sharing stock proceeds with employees, why make it any more
complicated than that?
Corp Gov for Tech Companies
There's been a great deal of talk and debate
about so-called "corporate governance". What is this all about? And
what about all the new regulations in Canada and the USA that dictate to company
boards how they should run their companies? What are the implications of all
this?
I attended a recent BC/TIA Roundtable on
Increasing Board Effectiveness showed how little CEOs, directors
and investors really know about this subject.
The panelists included Peter Briscoe,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Convedia Corporation, Victor
Giacomin, Chief Financial Officer, West Bay Semiconductors , Kevin
Cable, Managing Director, Cascadia Capital, Jonathan P. (JP)
Michael, Senior Vice President and Manager Comerica Bank, Technology
& Life Sciences Division.
Because of time limitations, they were only
able to scratch the surface of this very complex subject. That's why we're
putting together an all-day workshop on December 3rd.
For instance, when asked about directors'
compensation, I was shocked by the panelists' response. They all believed that
you could recruit a director - in a startup - by giving them less than 1% of the
company! Why, even VP's get a more attractive deal than that! Yet, directors are
the ones who are the ultimate soul, conscience and liability-carriers for a
business. Let's suppose that a director receives 1% of common stock (not
options), with a vesting period of 3 years, in an early stage pre-financing
deal. No cash fee (which I disagree with) is paid. After other team members and
investors enter the picture, this ownership is likely to dilute down to 0.5%
tops. Now, if all goes well, and if the company is sold for $100 million (it
happens, but its a long shot), that director will get $500K. More likely,
though, the company will be worth $10 million giving the director a $50K gain.
That's not much when you consider the huge risk, liability, and the probability
that there will be a zero payoff. I can tell you from first hand experience,
that I once got stuck with a personal tax bill because the company did not make
its payroll withholding tax remittances. Yet, the CEO and the management team
all get a regular paycheck on top of their founders position. I believe that if
you really want an effective board, you've got to make them a part of the
company - not just a bunch of token big shots.
One panelist said that there's a lot of
"boilerplate" available on governance. What does that mean? And,
what's good boilerplate versus bad? An excellent point made by one of the
financiers is that D&O (Directors and Officers liability insurance)
insurance gives you just that - insurance, not protection! Another mentioned
that boards need to be managed. Now, isn't that a strange perspective? I thought
that it was the boards who are supposed to make sure that the company is managed
properly! In this regard, at least all panelists agreed that the main function
of the board is to recruit the CEO. (Yet, in the first instance, it's the
entrepreneur/CEO that recruits the board!).
The all-day session that's planned for December
3rd will address the finding of directors, setting a board charter, succession
planning, dealing with overbearing or incompetent directors, evaluating their
performance and, of course, remunerating them fairly. It's also get into how
directors can bullet-proof themselves. Regulatory changes and their impact will
be covered. Already some jurisdictions, such as Ontario - which just this week
announced some sweeping and onerous new laws, are mimicking the knee-jerk
reaction in the USA. (Too bad there isn't a similar knee-jerk reaction to
violence, like banning guns.) For example, CEOs and CFOs will have to sign
off on financial statements. Mis-statements will be punishable by imprisonment.
The introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
in the U.S. to curb white collar corporate fraud may actually bode well for us
here in Canada unless we acquiesce (looks like Ontario already has, whereas BC
hasn't yet) and adopt similar, ridiculous rules.
The one size-fits-all approach in the U.S., may
kill some companies. Case in point - I know of a Nasdaq company that is stuck
because it's auditors will not sign off on the company's financial statements.
They are worried about being sued. When I asked what it'll take to get them to
approve the statements, I was told "higher fees", presumably to cover
their liability insurance with a little greenmail to boot. The accounting
firms will become rich. Too bad we can't easily invest in them!
A good boardroom topic relates to corporate
ethics. Here's an interesting ethical dilemma: Put yourself in Martha
Stewart's shoes for a moment and let's see if you're going to be a goody
two-shoes or not. She's in hot water for selling her shares in ImClone
just before a negative report was issued. The press has reported that she got a
tip from a broker (some say that it came from the company's founder) who told
her that insiders were selling stock. How many people in this situation,
especially outsiders, would not react as Martha did? Imclone's founder and
scientist Sam Waksal ultimately did the right thing by confessing to his
crime (rather than fighting it with expensive lawyers) for tipping off his
family members. A good board might have prevented this by having all insiders
fully educated and informed about insider selling and appropriate public
disclosure if and when they do.
As another ethical topic, Canadian corporate
insiders have long used a little known tool referred to as "equity
monetization". Most of our major banks profit nicely by facilitating
these transactions. It works like this: you hold a million shares in a public
company (which you received either when you merged your company with a pubco or
when you took your company public). Let's say that the stock is trading at $100
and you'd like to unload 100,000 of your shares for a cool $10 million. Your
bank gives you a $10 million loan and you give the bank a call option on your
stock. The bank takes very little risk because it shorts the 100,000 shares in
the market, thereby locking in the $10 price.
The use of this technique is not disclosed to
the public by insiders and taxes can be deferred for many years because the
shares have not technically been sold by the holder.
Apparently, that's not possible south of the
border. But, I've seen widespread use of this technique way back in the 70's.
It's especially popular by those who receive huge blocks of stock when their
company is acquired by a public company. In acquisitions involving a stock swap
there's usually the requirement for the shareholders of newly issued shares to
hold these for one year. Equity monetization effectively lets them sell their
shares at current market prices rather than wait and be exposed to a potential
decline. Does your company's board condone this?
When I read recently that VRX Studios of
Vancouver paid a $44k fine for software piracy it again pointed out the need for
more and better corporate governance practices. The company could have avoided
finding itself in this embarrassing position.
I noted an amusing piece in the Financial
Post this week. Billionaire money manager, Stephen Jarislowsky, now
77, quit his board seat in Montreal-based Velan Inc., because its
founder, controlling shareholder, chairman, president and CEO was holding too
tightly onto the corporate reigns. The 52-year old firm is still dominated by
its defiant 84-year old boss. As our boomer population starts to get older, are
we going to see more boardroom skirmishes led by ego-nomics rather than
economics? They may be oldies, but there not goldies - at least the shareholders
aren't seeing the gold. Perhaps they should take our upcoming course!
Is Capital in Short Supply?
I'm tired of hearing companies say that there's
no capital available. What people are really saying is that "there's no one
willing to bet on me on my terms". So, how can we fix that? There are two
ways: fix the terms (with a little help from our government friends) and/or fix
"me" (i.e. me and my team).
When money flows easily as it did in early
2000, lots of bad investments are made. Tough money (as we had before 1999 and
now after 2001) creates tougher businesses.
Tax incentives (e.g. B.C.'s VCC tax credits),
low capital gains taxes, etc. all help as does early stage funding - such as NRC's
IRAP, BC/ASI's Product Development Fund and the now defunct
Technology BC program (that used to be run by Science Council of BC - now
abandoned by the Liberal's because such support is seen to be a subsidy
to companies (which it is). Private equity breaks are good because they reward
risk takers and they may create more capital.
Expect some good news soon. B.C.'s Small
Business Venture Capital Act (SBVCA) is about (touch wood!) to be greatly
improved. This is the program whereby investors can get a 30% tax credit by
investing in eligible companies by using a special purpose Venture Capital Corp
(VCC). There have been many local technology executives that have contributed to
this by working closely with the Ministry of Competition Science and
Enterprise to re-write the Act.
Along with a lot of streamlining as to how
VCC's operate, the new SBVC Act amendments propose adoption of a "direct
investment model". This means that individual investors no longer need to
use a VCC - they can invest relatively small amounts of capital and get the tax
credit directly without the bureaucracy. The bad news is that this Act
will not be put before the legislature this Fall as anticipated but, rather,
will have to wait until Spring. That's too bad, because we badly need private
equity capital in BC businesses NOW! (feel free to call Gordon Campbell
if you care).
In 2000-01, Canadians claimed $32.7Bn in
capital gains income, up from $19.1Bn a year earlier. Some sour faced labor
economists estimate that, due to the lower capital gains rates, this has cost
the government almost $1Bn in lost revenues, 25 times the government's estimate.
So what? The increase has more than made up for the "loss"! And,
our federal surpluses seem to be coming in much higher than projected.
Maybe the Federal budget surplus would be even
higher if we had some up-front incentives to encourage investors. This was one
of the themes that came up at an national angel conference that I attended in
Toronto this week. This conference resulted in the formation of the National
Angel Organization (NAO). Angels, i.e. successful entrepreneurs investing
their own money in startups, are more interested in tax reforms that affect
individuals rather than corporations or limited partnerships.
Interestingly, I noted that because this
conference was in Toronto and attended mainly by Ontarians, there are certain
advantages that we, in B.C., have over Ontario - especially if we go with the
SBVC Act updates. The VCC program idea originally came from Ontario which has a
similar program in the 80's. B.C.'s Securities Commission also strikes me
as being more helpful in easing the regulatory burden for companies, rather than
increasing it. Indeed, later this month (Nov. 28), there'll be a seminar on the
new private capital exemptions in B.C. (I heard that this event, which is free,
may already be "sold out").
At the Angel conference, Ontario's Minister of
Enterprise, Opportunity, and Innovation, (don't you get a charge our of
these Ministry's names?), Jim Flaherty, commented that Angels invest
three times what VC's invest at the early stages of company development. He also
noted that per-capita VC investment in Ontario was $191 versus more than $400 in
California and more than $1000 in Massachussetts.
Flaherty also felt that entrepreneurial
education and support were critical factors. This struck a cord with me. This is
what it takes for companies to get funded - know how - at all levels. If you
were the brightest and smartest person in the world, you would get funded - no
question. But since you're not, you need to learn as much as you can and
supplement that with complimentary partners. It's not just intelligence and
education - it's the know-how that comes from experience and learning from
others who've taken the entrepreneurial trip.
So before you say that there's no money, it
might be good to look at why some are getting it and you're not.
Tech Bets
Historically, the markets take a run in the
November-April timeframe. Indeed, there have been some signs of life. Stocks
seem to be coming off their lows. Even Nortel, has almost tripled in
price from its low in the 60-cent range. The markets seem to be paying more
attention to good news while, uncharacteristically dismissing bad news. Now
might be the time to look at some of the local companies that are growing while
cash-flowing, and have ample cash in the bank (look at Intrynsic Software
(TSX:ICS), for example).
Sony
and Dell both reported good news in the form of increased demand for
computer hardware. New gadgets, especially the smaller digital variety are in
great demand. In Japan, Michael Dell introduced his company's smallest
desktop PC.
Locally, positive news came from B.C.
Statistics in its high tech report that reported high tech sector employment
in 2001 up by 5.2% over 2000. Not bad when compared to 2.3% in rest of Canada!
Microsoft Corp
(NASDAQ:MSFT) reported stellar quarterly results of $2.73Bn on sales of U$7.75Bn
up 26% over the previous year while IBM Corp (NYSE:IBM), which put
Microsoft on the map in the first place, clocked in U$1.69Bn net profit on sales
of $19.8Bn (flat for the year) for its recent quarter. MSFT's numbers are a
helluva benchmark to shoot for - imagine a 35% AFTER-TAX Net profit margin -
Goes to show what a virtual monopoly can do for you! No doubt it's spectacular
growth is giving MSFT a P/E of 30 vs IBM's 22. growth Even IBM's margin at 8.5%
isn't something to thumb your nose at - considering that IBM's not just a
software company. Anything over 5% (or anything, period) is great these days.
Not too many BC firms are making a buck - only
some in the top 20 pubcos. MacDonald Dettwiler (TSX:MDA) is a
notable local example to strive for. MDA has had over seventy - not a typo -
consecutive quarters of profit! It's diversified tech base consisting of
software, space and medical robotics, and communications has shielded it
somewhat from the market ups and downs that most others are experiencing.
Local venture capitalist, GrowthWorks
Capital Ltd., which manages B.C.'s Working Opportunity Fund (WOF) is
planning to take over Ontario's Working Ventures Services Inc. This will
result in this country's third largest labor-sponsored fund with $750 million in
assets (as compared to the $475 million under WOF). WOF's 5-year ROI is 7.8%.
Although that may not impress one, it is double what they're doing in Ontario.
These VC's cut themselves a pretty good deal. They charge a whopping 4% in
management and admin fees PLUS they take a 20% share of gains on each investment
when they liquidate. The fees alone add up to $30 million off the top. That'll
buy a few condos in sunny climes. Goes to show you how the OPM (Other People's
Money) game works - it's better to be a VC than an investor!
Capital Pool Corporation (CPC) Comments and
Update
In this column, I keep track of Capital
Pool Corporation ("CPC") companies as defined by the TSX Venture
Exchange (the former CDNX) because they may provide funding and management to,
and in the process acquire, technology companies. They provide companies with an
alternative to traditional venture capital financing. It lets the public
investor get into the game.
Action in the CPC market has been
lackluster. In 2001, there were only 39 CPCs that came to market as compared to
over 70 in 2000. Because many CPCs haven't completed their so-called Qualifying
Transactions (QTs), they face the threat of being delisted.
Check our Capital
Pool Corporation chart (in .pdf format) for
a complete list of the CDNX's CPC and VCP companies, thanks to
David Ing of Pacific International Securities. This list is
updated on a regular, e.g. monthly basis. It is now current to the end of
October, 2002. (previous update was September, 2002).
As of the end of September, there
have been 35 new CPCs listed year-to-date while 61 Qualifying Transactions have
been completed. The total number of listed virgin CPCs that haven't yet
announced a QT is 83.
An introductory
article explaining CPCs may be found at http://www.bctechnology.com
Local Events
On Dec 3rd, there'll be a one-day course at SFU's TIME
Centre titled: Better Boards Build Better Companies - The Nuts &
Bolts of Building and Operating Your High Tech Board. This will give company
entrepreneurs, investors, and board members lots of take-away information and
know-how on how to run their companies better - starting with the role and
mandate of the board. How do you find good directors? How do you compensate
them? How does a director avoid liability (surprise: Insurance isn't enough!)?
You can bet that this won't be just another one of those presentations with lots
motherhood statements. Attendance is limited to 60 people and the cost is only
$195 per person, including lunch. The format will involve lots of interaction
with participants. For more information, please contact time@sfu.ca
or call (604)268-7970.
You are invited to the 12th Angel Forum (www.angelforum.org)
on Tuesday, Nov 26 in Vancouver where pre-screened emerging companies seeking
equity funding of $100,000 to $1 million, deliver "live" presentations
to pre-screened investors. Companies showcase products & services during
networking breaks & closing wine reception. Already over 30 Angel investors
have registered. Their preferences are for tech and non-tech companies at the
development stage of "close to sales" or with "some sales"
with some demand for "in-development" stage. All investors are
pre-screened to ensure they are serious. This event is distinct and
separate from the regular monthly angel network meetings that take place in
Vancouver. Details on these can be found on the Vancouver Enterprise Forum's website.
The next Vancouver Enterprise Forum
event will take place on November 24th as well. So, you can make a full day of
it. Check the VEF website at www.vef.org for
more details!
October's Vancouver Enterprise Forum's topic
was "The Great Disappearing Act: The Hollowing Out of the BC Tech
Sector". This event addressed the impact of local tech company takeovers.
Being acquired is a great objective, but what really happens after the
honeymoon? What happens to these companies and their founders? Is a takeover
good or bad for B.C.?
The presenters included well-known local
entrepreneurs and executives Glen Brownlee, Motorola Wireless Division; Adam
Lorant, Octigabay; (formerly Abatis Systems which was sold in 2000 to
Rednacks Networks in $1B+ stock deal); Ross Mitchell, Broadcom Canada Inc.(who
sold his company, HotHaus to Broadcom for almost a half billion in 1999); and Jim
Brander, UBC, Asia Pacific Professor of International Business in the
Strategy and Business Economics Division of the Faculty of Commerce at the
University of British Columbia (UBC).
It was noted by Sam Znaimer, who
moderated the session, that buyouts numbered only 17 in first half of 2002
versus 35 in first half of 2001. This is likely because of the decline in the
value of the take-over currency, i.e. the shares that are typically swapped in
order to effect a merger.
As you can imagine, all presenters were big
fans of takeovers. They concluded that the net effect of takeovers, other than
on their own bank accounts, was neutral to positive. One audience member asked
what happened to the B.C. dream of building big, independent, world-class
companies that would become acquisitors rather acquisitees. While such
mergers may be seen as some by a selling out, it does help to develop a local
skills base, especially in the area of middle management which are so crucial to
transforming small companies into large ones - a good example being Burnaby's Creo
Inc.
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, the Canadian
Foundation for Investor Education (CFIE), in association with the Faculty
of Commerce and Business Administration at the University of British
Columbia, will host "Risk Capital in Canada: Breaking Down Barriers,
Increasing Access," at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Vancouver. This
one-day symposium will draw on the experiences and expertise of industry
participants, academics, and government representatives from Canada, the United
States, and Europe. These speakers will help to define and address some of the
key challenges Canada faces in becoming a world-leading incubator country for
emerging companies. For more information, send a note to symposium@tsx.ca
A complete calendar of technology events can be
found on T-Net's
Events page. Without getting too tacky, there's a new group in town
called TACI (Technology Associations Collaborative Initiative) which also
has a tech calendar - check www.techvenue.com/calendars/taci.
Footnotes
If you're an entrepreneur looking for a place
to get your company started; there's some great space available at Harbour
Centre downtown. The New Media Innovation Centre (NewMIC) and SFU's
TIME Centre have teemed up to provide not only office space but also access
to various resources, e.g. tech advisors, access to capital, mentors, etc.
Worried about the high cost of being downtown? Well, not to worry - they'll even
reduce the fees and take some payment in the form of equity. Check www.sfu.ca/time
for contact info.
A reminder: SFU's TIME Centre is open for
business - business folks, that is. TIME is an acronym for Technology,
Innovation, Management, and Entrepreneurship. TIME supports the growth and
development of the tech industry in B.C. TIME features a "Business Centre"
(looks like an airport business lounge) which is open to technology
entrepreneurs and business people to use as a drop-in downtown office facility.
Need to plug-in? Make some calls? Do some work? Hold a meeting? There are some
great facilities for holding your company's AGM. Why hang out at MacDonald's
when you can work productively at the TIME Centre? Drop by and check it out! It
is located at SFU's downtown campus at 515 West Hastings St.
Michael
Volker, a technology entrepreneur, is Director of the University/Industry Liaison
Office at Simon Fraser University, Chair of the B.C. Advanced Systems
Institute, Chair of the Vancouver
Angel Network and past Chair of the Vancouver
Enterprise Forum. He owns shares in many of the companies he writes about. Copyright,
2002.
What
Do You Think? Talk Back To Mike Volker
Tech Futures is
a bi-weekly column that focuses attention on new and emerging BC publicly listed
technology companies.
Contact: risktaker@volker.org
Printable
Edition
Tech
Futures Archive
T-Net
20 High Tech Stock Index
B.C.
High Tech Links
© 2010 T-Net. All Rights Reserved. |