Tag: Economic Growth

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Austin’s Venture Capital

Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

In my previous blog post, I discussed Austin, Texas’ strong history of entrepreneurship and the many resources in the ecosystem. Supportive Austin policies have resulted in the creation of the Entrepreneur Center of Austin, and resources like Capital Factory and Tech Ranch Austin have emerged. Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem appeared to be healthy.

A recent PitchBook Report discussing venture capital in Austin shows the ecosystem to not be as healthy as previously thought. In 2014, Austin saw 286 deals closed at a value of $1.4 billion. Similarly, in 2015, 296 deals closed or $1.3 billion. 2016 saw a substantial decrease in the number and value of deals closed with 199 deals closed at a value of $978 million.

Austin’s ecosystem reflects a nationwide trend in declining deals. According to PitchBook, the number of deals closed nationwide had been rising steadily since 2009, peaking in 2014 with 10,501 deals closed. 2015 and 2016 both saw decreases in the number of deals closed; 10,293 and 8,136 respectively. The 8,136 deals closed in 2016 is the lowest number of deals closed since 2012.

An insufficient supply of startups and an increased perception of risk are decreasing VC investment in the Austin ecosystem. Investors likely fear that the oversupply of capital that has been invested in the system in 2014 and 2015 has led to slumping returns, so they are pulling back their investments. Once VC investment balances out, it is likely that Austin will see investment increase again.

Outside investment in Austin-based companies soared in 2014 and 2015, as respectively, 396 and 370 investors from outside the Austin metropolitan statistical area invested in Austin-based ventures. In 2015, Austin had the most venture capital invested in its first financings with $324 million. However, venture capital activity in the United States overall has declined. Austin’s most prominent VC fund, Austin Ventures, closed in 2015. After the two-year boom period from 2014 to 2015, the rate of VC investing in Austin startups has slid considerably over the 2016 period.

Austin’s diverse ecosystem is an asset to the stability of VC investment in the area. While the majority of VC activity occurs in the software industry, the pharmaceutical and biotech industry also attract significant VC investment. In 2015, 12 deals were closed in health care devices and services, and in 2016, 11 deals. The opening of the Dell Seton Medical Center and Capital City Innovation, which will work to connect entrepreneurs with healthcare research, will likely contribute to increases in VC for health care devices and services.

According to a McNair Center Report, VC investment in Texas is falling. Yet Austin’s relatively low costs and the boom of angel/seed investment have given Austin a reputation as a thriving startup ecosystem in a state where VC investment is dropping. Despite decreases in a 2016 VC investment in the region, it is likely that Austin will see investment in crease again after VC investment balances out.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center

The International Entrepreneur Rule: The US Startup Visa

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - SEPTEMBER 7: Atmosphere during the TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2013 Hackathon inside The Concourse at San Francisco Design Center on September 7, 2013 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Jeff Bottari/TechCrunch) *** Local Caption ***

The Obama administration proposed new provisions for immigrant entrepreneurs in August 2016. The administration designed the proposal to attract international entrepreneurial talent to the United States, especially in advanced technology fields. In mid-January, with only days left in President Obama’s term, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finalized the details of the “International Entrepreneur Rule.” It is scheduled to go into effect on July 17, 2017. Whether it goes into effect will depend on President Trump’s immigration plan, which may see changes in the current H1-B visa program.
statue

Overview

The International Entrepreneur Rule would allow USCIS to grant discretionary parole to international entrepreneurs for two and a half years . However, entrepreneurs may struggle to qualify for a parole grant unless they are already involved in a successful venture. The rule states that first-time applicants must own at least 10% of a U.S. startup that is less than five years old and play a significant role in its management.

Applicants must also demonstrate that their startup has high potential for growth and job creation. The two main avenues for satisfying this criterion are demonstrating that the company has received $250,000 or more in venture capital from “established U.S. investors” or at least $100,000 or more in funding from government entities. Applicants that do not meet these standards may still qualify if they can demonstrate “significant public benefit that would be provided by the applicant’s (or family’s) parole into the United States.”

After their initial parole is over, entrepreneurs may apply to extend their stay for an additional two and a half years. In order to receive an extension, entrepreneurs must show that their startups have “shown signs of significant growth.” A total of two parole grants is the maximum; there are no further extensions. If entrepreneurs wish to stay longer, they must find another method to secure a visa or a green card.

Analysis

When this rule was originally proposed by the Obama administration, it received early praise; Tim Ryan, the co-founder of Startup San Diego, applauded the proposal as a step in the right direction.

However, government agencies only expect this rule to impact a very limited number of entrepreneurs. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a mere 2,940 international entrepreneurs will qualify annually. DHS also estimates they will bring approximately 3,234 dependents and spouses. In contrast, the USCIS approved 85,000 H1-B visas in the 2014 fiscal year.

The high level of investment required may serve as a hurdle for applicants. Y Combinator, widely considered the world’s best startup accelerator, only offers startups a maximum of $120,000 in investment funding. However, to qualify for the proposed International Entrepreneur Rule, USCIS expects companies to have at least $250,000. Not only that, but this money must come from investors with a record of repeated investment successes. Some policy advocates worry that there simply will not be enough reputable investors able to provide that level of funding. Moreover, even if some investors can fulfill the requirement, they may not all have the necessary experience to satisfy the rule.

The rule may help to keep entrepreneurial talent in the U.S., but will do little to attract new recruits. The applicant pool may be limited by the requirements that the company must be U.S.-founded and that the applicant have a significant role in the company. Because of these specifications, applicants must be individuals who are already in the U.S. Nonetheless, this rule may help international students at U.S. universities who are unable to acquire H-1B visas.

There is also an issue of time — entrepreneurs only have five years, maximum. The high levels of investment required for initial application and renewal may put strain on startups. TechCrunch puts the average time of an “IPO-track startup” at about seven years, although it can take up to ten years. Given this information, the parole periods may not be long enough to positively impact startups.

Ultimately, potential investors may view the startup visa as an undesirable risk. Investors will be aware of the possibility that a company, or at least its key members, could lose immigration status.

Lastly, it is unclear whether the Trump Administration will alter the details of the rule. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman informed CNN on January 23 that the DHS is still awaiting guidance on how President Trump’s executive order freezing new and pending regulations will impact the International Entrepreneur Rule’s implementation.

Learning from Other Countries

The U.S. is not the first to propose a visa for startup entrepreneurs. Many other countries have established their own processes for admitting international entrepreneurs, including the United Kingdom, Canada and France.

The U.K. allows individuals wishing to set up or take over a business within its borders to apply for a Tier 1 (Entrepreneurship) Visa which can be extended before they can apply for settlement or an indefinite leave to remain. The U.K.’s financial requirements for applicants are also more flexible than the U.S. requirements in sources and amounts of funding. The U.K. startup visa does not require that applicants start the business themselves. Instead, intention of starting a new business, taking over one or providing significant funding is enough.

Canada seeks to attract innovative talent by tying them to government-approved Canadian entities with a goal of facilitating long-term success. The Canadian Start-Up Visa Program focuses on the creation of new startups. Applicants must obtain at least one letter of support that details funding from a list of designated organizations. This includes venture capital funds, angel investor groups and business incubators.

France launched its French Tech Visa in 2016 to complement the “French Tech Ticket” program it began in 2015. The French Tech Ticket program selects 70 international entrepreneur teams and provides funding and support with a French incubator for a year. The French Tech Visa expands this program to attract foreign startup founders, exceptional talent, investors and angels by offering renewable visas.

The U.S. could look into incorporating aspects of these programs to compete for the top foreign entrepreneurs. For example, the entrepreneurs can only renew this visa once; perhaps lawmakers could extend its duration or allow additional renewals. The U.S. could also aid the integration of accepted businesses into the startup and tech communities. These changes, however, would be dependent on President Trump’s immigration policy.

Conclusion

Eligibility requirements of the International Entrepreneur Rule are rigorous, and the time period allotted by the visa is short. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed startup visa would have little, if any, economic impact. Moreover, if President Trump repeals the order, there may be little hope for a truly meaningful startup visa. While Trump vows to “establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first,” his exact plans for reforming H-1B visas, including the possibility of a startup visa, are unclear.

Categories
Government and Policy McNair Center Women

The Right to Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship and human rights are not frequently mentioned in the same conversation in the United States. However, in international policy, human rights and entrepreneurship are linked by many common policy goals, including enforcing the rule of law, improving infrastructure and fighting corruption. Rights necessary to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors–like the right to participate in the economy, the rights to education and information and access to credit–are considered crucial for the world’s poor. By pursuing these goals, human rights activists and entrepreneurship advocates can work together for the good of all.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/UN_Geneva_Human_Rights_and_Alliance_of_Civilizations_Room.jpg The UN Human Rights Council meets here.
The UN Human Rights Council meets in Alliance of Civilizations room in Geneva.

Human Rights

Human rights are defined by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.” Since the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, criteria has changed. Nonetheless, human rights continue to be a top priority in international law. According to the Department of State, the U.S. places an emphasis on human rights while pursuing foreign policy goals:  “A central goal of U.S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

A Mutually Beneficial Relationship

Human rights and entrepreneurship have the ability to reinforce one another. Hrishikesh D. Vinod of Fordham University examined the policy and advocacy goals of entrepreneurship and human rights, looking for areas for collaboration. He identified five key areas where the goals of entrepreneurs and rights advocates align: promotion of fair competition, creating infrastructure, protecting migration rights, exposing government corruption and preservation of the rule of law. Vinod describes entrepreneurship and human rights as natural allies. He notes that “their cooperation is likely to become a potent force for a worldwide progressive change.”

A study done by the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru helps to demonstrate Vinod’s argument in action. In this study, implementation of a human rights awareness and training campaign in Central Asia by a nongovernmental group increased new micro-businesses by five percent. The researchers who conducted this study urged that “the time is now ripe for acceptance of human rights approach to development of entrepreneurship as the human rights and entrepreneurship share a preoccupation not only with necessary outcomes for improving the lives of the people but also with better processes.”

The Right to Entrepreneurship

The United Nations Development Programme asserts that the rights that allow someone to start a business or become self-employed are “essential for the livelihoods of the poor.” The UNDP stresses that micro-entrepreneurship and self-employment are often the only option for the poor to generate money. Protection of these rights can impact many lives.

The right to entrepreneurship, along with other economic rights, can lead to the promotion of other social and political rights. A study commissioned by the World Bank explains the nature of the relationship: “The importance of participation in economic decision-making demonstrates how civil and political rights and socio-economic rights are mutually supportive, and why human rights recognize them to be interrelated, indivisible and interdependent.” For example, micro-credit and micro-entrepreneurship can increase economic, social and political empowerment of the poor, especially poor women. The Benazir Income Support Program offers small loans to women in Pakistan to pay for expenses and pursue entrepreneurship opportunities. However, this program did more than just bolster these women’s rights to entrepreneurship; the program also resulted in previously “unregistered” women becoming “registered,” giving them access to other social and political rights.

A 2010 study on women in rural Bangladesh also noticed a connection between entrepreneurship and other rights. Bangladeshi women often don’t have the opportunity to become formally involved in the economy. In this study, small bank loans gave them capital to start micro-businesses and increase their economic empowerment. With the ability to participate in trade, women can use their newfound security to pursue other rights as well.

In 2008, the Harvard Human Rights Journal pushed for the promotion of entrepreneurial rights of the poor. In their recommendation for the U.S. Human Rights agenda going forward, they suggested that the U.S. increase micro-entrepreneurship funding for other countries “because we know it works.” They added that it is “up to us to focus our resources on building a new generation of small entrepreneurs in the developing world.”

How Can This Impact Policy Decisions?

Knowing that entrepreneurship and human rights have the power to reinforce one another, we can create policy that accelerates both. When we protect human rights, individuals can feel empowered and safe to explore entrepreneurial endeavors. The trend works in the opposite direction as well; possessing the right to entrepreneurship can empower individuals to pursue the protection of their other rights. Economic power can allow vulnerable individuals to fight more effectively for the promotion of their rights.

This relationship demonstrates an important point for advocates of any cause: it is important think about collaboration whenever possible. There is always potential to find compromises that benefit all, and we have more in common than we expect.

Categories
McNair Center Startup Ecosystems

Keep Austin Entrepreneurial

Austin, Texas

Ranked number one for startup activity in the last two years by the Kauffman Foundation, Austin, Texas is one of the strongest emerging entrepreneurship ecosystems in the United States. Austin’s history of entrepreneurship and supportive government has facilitated Austin’s emergence as an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Austin’s History of Entrepreneurship

During the 1970s and 1980s, Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem focused on computer and semiconductor manufacturing. Efforts by the Austin Chamber of Commerce, such as low mortgage rates for relocating staff and tax incentives, fueled the move of several major companies to Austin: IBM in 1967, Texas Instruments in 1969 and Motorola in 1974. A doubling in student attendance at the University of Texas in the early 1970s increased the educated workforce in the region.

The selection of Austin as the home of the Microelectronic Computer Corporation (MCC) in 1982 accelerated this concentration of high-tech companies. Facing fierce competition from Japan’s Fifth Generation Project, major U.S. companies banded together and created MCC, one of the largest computer research companies at the time. MCC chose Austin instead of Silicon Valley and Route 128 because the University of Texas offered MCC a subsidized lease and the Chamber of Commerce facilitated low-cost loans and reduced mortgage rates for staff moving to Austin.

Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas

Initially, the Austin ecosystem was primarily large businesses, such as IBM and Texas Instruments. This focus changed after the oil slump and savings and loan crises of the late 1980s and early 1990s crippled the Texas economy. Austin was not spared. It had one of the highest commercial real estate vacancy rates in the country and companies laid off large numbers of employees.

In response, the University of Texas formed the Austin Technology Incubator (ATI) in 1989 to jumpstart the local economy through high-tech startups with high-growth potential. In 1989, Greg Kozmetsky, the brain behind ATI, founded Austin’s first angel network, the Capital Network. These initiatives provided a foundation for growth during the 1990s dot-com boom. Austin companies such as Garden.com, an online gardening shop that raised $50 million in venture capital, and DrKoop.com, an “Internet-based consumer health-care network,” that was worth more than $1 billion, found success in Austin.

In 2000, thirty Austin venture capitalists invested over $2 billion in entrepreneurship ventures. The subsequent burst of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s hurt Austin. After the 2001-2003 economic downturn, the region experienced major industrial restructuring and a renewal of entrepreneurship.

In 2003, the business community raised $11 million for Opportunity Austin, an economic development program. Opportunity Austin focused on recruiting new businesses, marketing Austin effectively and stimulating entrepreneurship and emerging technology sectors.

Less than five years after the last economic downturn, the Great Recession of 2008 set back many new Austin businesses. While venture capital and small business creation are not at the level they were during the dot-com boom, the rate of startup growth is currently 81.23 percent.

Entrepreneurship in Austin Now

Austin is experiencing yet another entrepreneurship boom. Austin now has the supportive policy structure, mentors and sector diversification required to finally establish a lasting ecosystem.

Austin’s cultural support of local businesses and responsive state and local government policies are fueling its start-up growth. The absence of state income tax incentivizes young professionals to work and settle in Texas. The local Austin government provides services for people considering starting a business such as BizAid Business Orientation and Small Business Program. The Entrepreneur Center of Austin and the Indus Entrepreneurs of Austin specifically provide support for start-ups. The University of Texas’ Herb Kelleher Center for Entrepreneurship, Growth and Renewal connects Austin entrepreneurs with resources.

As a result of Austin’s strong history of entrepreneurship, mentorship opportunities for nascent entrepreneurs are readily available. Austin companies, such as Dell, offer mentorship and accelerator programs. Entrepreneurial hubs, such as Tech Ranch Austin and Capital Factory, serve as an intersection between Austin incubators, accelerators, coworking spaces and also offer mentorship programs for entrepreneurs.

While known as “Silicon Hills,” Austin’s entrepreneurship economy is much more diversified than the computer chip and semiconductor industry that first enabled its growth. According to a 2015 Austin Technology Council report, approximately 14 percent of the $22.3 billion value of Austin’s tech companies came from semiconductors. Computer and peripheral equipment contributed 31 percent. Both Austin-born and transplanted companies focus on the bioscience, energy, clean-technology, water and IT/wireless industries. Austin has an extremely strong tech-focused entrepreneurship industry, but it also has successful media, education and social and craft/lifestyle ventures.

Venture Capital in Texas and Austin

Texas’ venture capital investment has decreased by 19 percent over the past ten years. To maintain a healthy entrepreneurship ecosystem, it is imperative that venture capital investment increases in the coming years.

Austin’s ecosystem lacks capital. In 2014, Austin saw 99 venture capital deals worth $739 million. In contrast, Silicon Valley saw 1,333 deals worth more than $27 billion. While there is no shortage of capital in Texas, there is a lack of capital access, information and government support. The majority of Texas capital is invested in oil, gas and real estate. These are considered by many to be less risky than entrepreneurship ventures. However, as oil prices fall, Texans should consider trying to raise growth and investing in entrepreneurial ventures.

Austin’s most prominent venture capital fund, Austin Ventures, closed in 2015. Phil Siegel and David Lack left to form Tritium Partners to provide capital for startups in Austin. Its first fund of $309 million is a fraction of the $900 million Austin Ventures raised at its peak. Silverton Partners and S3 Ventures have tried to fill the void left by Austin Ventures. However, none of these Austin venture capital funds have the capital or assets that Austin Ventures had.

Entrepreneurial Resources in Austin

Austin has a plethora of resources for entrepreneurs. The annual South by Southwest Festival provides networking opportunities. Companies are taking advantage of the 100,000 college students that graduate each year in the greater Austin area. The University of Texas at Austin boasts the Austin Technology Incubator under the IC² Institute, which has raised almost $700 million in investor capital to achieve this goal. Additionally, the Central Texas Angel Network provides capital and mentorship support for entrepreneurs in the Central Texas region.

What Starts in Austin, Changes the World

Austin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is moving towards national recognition. Favor, a food delivery app, is an alumni of ATI and backed by Austin’s S3 Ventures and Silverton Partners. HomeAway, an Austin based online rental marketplace, was established in 2005 and acquired by Expedia for $3.9 billion in 2015. In the upcoming years, it is critical that capital investment continues to support new ventures such as Favor and HomeAway. Austin’s ecosystem has the policy, talent and mentorship to be successful, but private and public efforts must continue to ensure its success.

Categories
McNair Center Weekly Roundup

Entrepreneurship Weekly Roundup: 11/18/2016

Weekly Roundup is a McNair Center series compiling and summarizing the week’s most important Entrepreneurship and Innovation news.

Here is what you need to know about entrepreneurship this week:

Nationalism is not putting a damper on this trillion-dollar sector

Elaine Pofeldt, Contributor, CNBC.com

CNBC Contributor Elain Pofeldt observes that the United States and Europe are witnessing a rise in nationalist and anti-globalization sentiment. She cites Mr. Trump’s election and the Brexit referendum as evidence. The trend may reflect a global desire to redistribute market and government benefits domestically – and a disapproval of corporations that send wages abroad and profits to the already wealthy.

In this uncertain climate, one economic principle remains key: Entrepreneurship fosters economic growth.

The Kauffman Foundation’s recently released Global Entrepreneurship Index emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship to economic growth. This annual index rates countries on the health and quality of their entrepreneurial ecosystems. There is a strong correlation between a country’s GDP and its technological advancements. Governments should support a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem if they are truly serious about encouraging the country’s economic growth.

Currently the U.S. ranks number one on the index. The index suggests that the strength of the U.S. entrepreneurial environment lies in a strong perception for opportunity. One area of opportunity that U.S. entrepreneurs are increasingly tapping into are the regulated sectors, such as health care, energy and education.

Social entrepreneurs is also on the rise. Jonathan Ortmans, a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, notes how this relates to national policy: “We’re now seeing a much larger number of public-sector leaders — government at the national and local level — jumping in and asking, `How do we tackle this and build stronger entrepreneurial ecosystems?'”

The Role of Entrepreneurship in Job Creation and Economic Growth

Margarita Hakobyan, Contributor, Huffington Post

Huffington Post’s Hakobyan emphasizes the role of entrepreneurship in job creation and economic growth. According to a report released by the Small Business Administration in 2012, small businesses created 60 percent of new jobs in the previous decade.

New businesses challenge existing markets and encourage competition by offering new or improved products. Successful entrants often steer customers away from existing companies. Disruptions in the market consequently force existing companies to innovate or watch their market share diminish.

Although the manufacturing sector suffered job losses from advancements in automation and other technologies, its productivity and scale have both risen considerably.

Manufacturing is an exception – many market disruptions create jobs. For example, Netflix, dismantled the video rental industry but created jobs by feeding a demand for large-scale processing of DVDs and maintenance of the grocery store kiosks that sell these DVDs.

Small businesses can also contribute to economic growth through their flexibility and diversity. Flexibility allows startups to react quickly to market conditions. Startups can meet consumer demands faster than established corporations because large companies often must follow long administrative processes before implementing reforms.

Venture Capital Firm Navigates Uncharted Course to Success

Michael J. de la Merced, Reporter, New York Times

The Times’ Merced reports on venture capital firm, Spark Capital. The firm is known for early investment in promising startups like Twitter, Tumblr, Slack and Oculus.

Spark is also wading into uncertain industries. It recently invested in Cruise Automation, a San Francisco-based startup that develops software for self-driving cars. At a time when Google and Uber declared self-driving vehicles “among their top research priorities,” the success of less funded and less established startups competing to break into the same market seemed doubtful. Big industry players already dominated the research on self-automated cars, so most VC firms turned to alternative ventures within less-explored markets. Despite the industry’s conventional wisdom, Cruise Automation was sold to General Motors for $1 billion within months.

Spark adopts a nontraditional process for investment decisions that focuses on products rather than markets. Instead of specializing in certain industries or markets, partners at Spark can bring any prospective venture to the table. Investors then debate the merits of pursuing the opportunity until a consensus among the partners is reached. Spark accredits its most successful decisions to an “appreciation for good product design.”

In total, Spark manages $3 billion in investment funds. Its fifth venture fund will have a first-close target of $400 million.

Ever Wanted to Back a Start-Up? Indiegogo Opens the Door to Small Investors

Stacy Cowley, Reporter, The New York Times

Indiegogo is a popular crowdfunding site that enables small venture capitalists to invest personal money into promising and creative ventures. The major crowdfunding site is the first to take advantage of a new securities rule, which allows “ordinary investors to risk up to a few thousands dollars a year backing private companies.”

Before the rule was passed, only accredited investors, or those with an annual income greater than $200,000 or net worth of $1 million, could invest personal funds in these riskier ventures. With the passage of the new rule, crowdfunding backers can own equity stakes in the companies they invest in.

The new rule addresses an issue raised during Oculus’ acquisition by Facebook. Oculus raised millions of dollars on crowdfunding sites during its early investment stages. The startup used the investments raised by crowdfunding backers to prove to venture capitalists that there was a market demand for its products. Investors poured money into the company, and Facebook subsequently acquired Oculus. The firm’s original crowdfunding backers reaped no gains; angel and venture capital investors took home the profits.

The Reason Silicon Valley Beat Out Boston for VC Dominance

Anil Gupta and Haiyan Wang, Contributors, Harvard Business Review

The Boston-Cambridge and Bay Area have histories in technology entrepreneurship and venture capital (VC). However, since the 1990s, Silicon Valley has consistently snatched a larger share of all VC investments in the US than its Northeastern counterpart. New England’s share in VC investments plateaued at roughly 10 percent. Meanwhile, the Bay Area’s share of VC investments has grown from 22.6 percent to just over 50 percent.

HBR’s Gupta and Wang identify cultural factors and state-level policies as possible explanations for the divergence between the two coastal VC hubs. For example, Massachusetts, unlike California, allows businesses to include noncompete covenants in their employment contracts. Noncompete covenants offer company loyalty, but they can also remove the need for fast-paced innovation that many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs face.

Additionally, New England and Silicon Valley differ in the type of investors and companies that they attract. The Northeast dominates in the life sciences; in the first three quarters of 2016, 60 percent of New England investments involved ventures focused on biotechnology and medical devices. Silicon Valley, on the other hand, is home to many of the startups that develop platform technologies integral to the digital age.

According to Gupta and Wang, California’s stronghold on the digital and tech industry has resulted in a “growing agglomeration effect.” Increasingly, entrepreneurs are migrating to or launching their businesses in the Bay Area to gain access to these synergies that come from being immersed in the world’s greatest entrepreneurship ecosystem.

And in startup news…

Womply bags $30M to Help Small Businesses Harness Data

Tomio Geron, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

San Francisco-based Womply raised $30 million in its most recent round of financing, bringing its funding total up to $50 million since 2011.

The startup’s platform offers a “web-based suite of software tools” that allows small businesses to analyze performance data on sales, marketing, consumer behavior, revenue and online reputation.

Womply serves a diverse set of clients, ranging from salons to legal firms, but focuses on supporting service-oriented small business. The startup allows small businesses to gain valuable insights into their performance and consumer base. President Cory Capoccia says Womply is helping small businesses increase their efficacy “by “building technology to help grow, protect and simplify running small businesses.”

Rice Entrepreneurs

Spotlight on Rice Entrepreneurs: East-West Tea

Carlin Cherry, Research Assistant, McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation

East-West Tea is a student-run business that sells boba tea to Rice University students. Initially developed as a project for an undergraduate marketing class, East-West launched operations last month. The McNair Center’s Carlin Cherry interviews operations manager Andrew Maust.

Categories
McNair Center Small Business

Small Business and Overtime Regulation

Clocking in: Small Business and Overtime Regulation

What is the New Overtime Regulation?

frustrated workerOn December 1, 2016, the Labor Department will officially institute new regulations on overtime eligibility for workers. Announced on May 17, the new rules require business owners to pay salary workers earning up to $47,476 a year time-and-a-half overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours during the week. This new regulation will be updated every three years to adjust for average pay in the United States.

Federal employment law stipulates two different ways for employees to receive overtime pay. First, if the employee is not an executive or a professional with decision-making authority they are eligible. Second, if the salary of an employee is below a certain amount, that employee can receive overtime pay.

Who is Affected?

While the Labor Department calculated that the new law will affect 4.2 million workers, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that this new regulation will affect 12.5 million employees. That is 23% of salaried workers. The institute expects these new rules to affect over one million Texans.

The new overtime rule will apply to any business that is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This includes any business with sales of at least $500,000, or employers involved in interstate commerce. The National Federation of Independent Businesses says that the requirements will affect around 44% of US business with fewer than 500 employees.

History of Overtime Pay Regulations

The 1938 law that began federal minimum wage also started the overtime rule. While the government has raised the overtime pay salary cut-off several times over the years, the current cut-off is at $23,660. Vice President Biden noted that that more than 60 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime in 1975 based on their salaries, but only 7 percent do today.

Complying with Regulations

To comply with these new regulations, employers will have to track employees work hours, even those of salaried employees. This change can involve costly adjustments as employers may have to buy new systems and spend time on regulatory compliance. Additionally, employers may have to change the way they manage their labor budget. Failure to comply can result in lawsuits or penalties.

Employers will most likely respond in a couple of ways. Some employers will choose to limit their employees’ work hours to avoid paying overtime. Others may hire additional workers and divide up existing jobs. Additionally, employers could raise the pay of employees whose salaries are close to the cutoff to avoid paying overtime work. Or employers could cut salaries of workers with the hope that overtime will make up the difference in income.

Oxford Economics predicted that a “disproportionate number[s] of workers” [that] became eligible for overtime and worked more than 40 hours would see their hourly rates decreased by an equal amount, leaving their total annual earnings unchanged.” On the other hand, the Institute for the Study of Labor, said that base wages would fall somewhat over time, but that the higher overtime payments would more than offset any loss in regular salary levels.

Positive Aspects of the New Regulations

The new regulations could potentially have positive effects on the labor force. Goldman Sachs and the Economic Policy Institute estimate that the new regulations will create about 120,000 jobs.

The main argument, however, it is only right for employees to earn overtime for working over 40 hours. Vice President Biden and other supporters of the change present the idea of fairness as the main positive aspect of the new regulation. The Obama Administration hopes that the rule change will give middle-class families additional income.

Negative Aspects of the New Regulations

Despite the potential for positive effects, the new regulations could bring numerous negative consequences for employers.

The new regulations will immediately require employers to keep track of employee attendance and hours. This tracking will impose implementation and operation expenses, which may be prohibitively high for smaller and less profitable firms. Payroll reclassification for small businesses can also be time consuming and expensive. Business owners must also figure out whether their workers are exempt from the new requirements. Misclassification can result in lawsuits and penalties. And, of course, small businesses may face increased payroll expense.

All of these changes can be costly for small businesses to implement. A study by the National Retail Federation estimated employers could end up having to pay as much as $874 million to update payroll systems, convert salaried employees to hourly wages and track their hours. The potential costs have not gone unnoticed; the National Federation of Independent Businesses filed a petition to delay the implementation of these new rules. Otherwise, the new regulation may drive some small firms out of business.

Hurting Workers

This new measure could even hurt employees by giving workers less flexibility, hour cuts and decreased morale. Salaried employees often enjoy flexibility in working hours that can allow them a certain amount of freedom. This flexibility is about to become more expensive as employees are required to record every hour of their work. Being a salaried employee, rather than per-hour labor, also has positive psychological benefits. Employee morale may therefore drop. Finally, employees will soon run the risk that their employers will cut their hours to avoid paying overtime.

Jobs may be created by this regulation. However, most of those new jobs could come from cutting a full-time job in half to avoid paying overtime. Coordinating two people to do one person’s job will make America’s workforce less productive.

Room for Improvement

These new regulations disproportionately hurt small businesses. It may be important to respect the rights of workers to earn more money for overtime. However, the government must find a solution to help low-income workers without imposing a burden on small business owners.

A step in the right direction would be to institute this new regulation in phases. The overtime income cutoff change from $23,660 to $47,476 is a huge difference. But unless government offsets these costs, perhaps by lowering taxes on small businesses, this new policy will discriminate against the 28 million small businesses that provide more than 8 million American jobs.

Categories
McNair Center Small Business

Immigrants and Entrepreneurship

Embracing Immigrant Entrepreneurs

Every day Sharan Gahunia, owner of Raja Sweets in the Hillcroft area of Houston, Texas, sells mithai and other Indian pastries in the shop her father founded over 30 years ago. When Raja Sweets first opened up, there was little South Asian cuisine and culture within Houston, but through hard work and entrepreneurship, South Asian immigrants like Gahunia have helped turn the Hillcroft area into a booming cultural center officially recognized as the Mahatma Gandhi district.

Immigrant entrepreneurs like the Gahunia family are a key factor in American small business and entrepreneurship. 

Where are Immigrant Entrepreneurs from?

Immigrant entrepreneurs are a diverse and growing group. According to statistics from the 2013 American Community Survey, the vast majority of immigrant business owners, 23.4%, originate from Mexico, reflecting the large and long-standing Mexican immigrant population in the United States. The next three countries of origin in terms of raw number of business owners are Korea with 5.1% and India and Vietnam with Houston's Chinatown is home to many immigrant-run small businesses. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MetropoleCenterHoustonTX.jpg4.1% each.

Examining the percentage of business owners by country of origin provides further insight. Iran appears to be the largest exporter of entrepreneurs, with nearly 1/4, or 24.4%, of Iranian immigrants in the U.S. owning a business. The next three countries of origin with the highest rates of business ownership are South Korea with 23.1%, Brazil with 21.0% and Italy with 20.1%.

Educational Extremes and Type of Work

The survey also shows that the distribution of educational degrees among immigrant entrepreneurs is statistically bimodal. 29.8% of immigrant business owners possess a college degree, yet 25.7% of them, the second largest portion, do not have a high school degree. This wide range of educational backgrounds may reflect differences in the immigrant entrepreneur’s countries of origin.

Immigrant entrepreneurs tend to live in the larger states, with 27.8% in California, 11.8% in Florida, 10.7% in New York and 10.5% in Texas. Most immigrant entrepreneurs own either construction or professional service firms, representing 17.2% and 16.7% of all immigrant owned small businesses, respectively. However, the type of work immigrant entrepreneurs engage in is diverse, ranging from agriculture to wind-power generation. A surprising 16.2% of all immigrant owned business fall into the impossible to categorize category “other.”

Small Business Entrepreneurs

In 2012 the Small Business Administration reported higher rates in business ownership and business formation among the U.S. immigrant population as compared to the non-immigrant population. The SBA further found that immigrant-owned businesses tend to export to the global market at a disproportionately higher rate as well.

In 2014, the Kauffman Foundation found that the percentage of small businesses owned by immigrants more than doubled from 13.3 % in 1996 to 28.5% in 2014. The foundation also showed that immigrants did as well or better than native-born entrepreneurs with “opportunity entrepreneurship.” Immigrants are skilled at finding and filling market gaps — such as the unmet demand for Indian pastries the Gahunia family exploited.

Research even suggests that immigrant entrepreneurs perform better as compared to non-immigrant entrepreneurs. In a 2015 study, economists Robert Fairlie and Magnus Lofstrom found that immigrants were well suited to entrepreneurship. They listed ties with already existing immigrant populations, high amounts of family savings, and a lack of pre-existing career, as factors the may make immigrant entrepreneurs particularly successful.

High-technology Entrepreneurship

In the world of high-technology, high growth entrepreneurship, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) reported that, “If immigrant-founded venture-backed public companies were a country, then the value of its stock exchange would rank 16th in the world, higher than the exchanges of Russia, South Africa and Taiwan.”  These trends hold for privately held venture-backed companies as well. The study found that immigrant entrepreneurs started 30% of these businesses.

Even outside of high-growth start-up firms, immigrants have a strong positive impact in high-technology. For example, the University of Michigan showed that total computer science employment would have been 3.8% between 9.0% lower if immigration were held at 1994 levels.

 

Looking toward the Future

The NVCA study reported that 78% of immigrant entrepreneurs started their business while either on an H1B employer-sponsored or a F-1 international student visa. Overall, there is strong evidence that immigrants perform better as entrepreneurs than native-born individuals and that they are a boon to the U.S. economy. Reforming immigration policy to encourage yet more immigrant entrepreneurs would therefore contribute to America’s prosperity in the 21st century.

Categories
McNair Center

A Conversation with Bob McNair

Bob McNair addresses the crowd with the Director of the McNair Center, Dr. Edward J. Egan.

On August 29, 2016, the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation hosted an evening with Bob McNair.  As the founder of Cogen Technologies and the founder, chairman, and CEO of the Houston Texans, McNair drew on his vast experience in business and philanthropy to offer advice to Rice University students and young professionals.

In 1960, McNair arrived in Houston with $700 and a goal to break into the trucking industry. However, after he established his trucking company, the industry became deregulated, forcing him into millions of dollars of debt. Despite this failure, McNair used his new knowledge of deregulation to find opportunity in three industries: intermodal transport, telecommunications, and cogeneration. Cogeneration, or the concurrent production of electricity and heat, became McNair’s most successful investment, and in 1999, he sold his company Cogen Technologies for $1.5 billion.

When asked for career advice, McNair emphasized to students and young professionals the importance of adding value to their environments. “The most important thing is putting yourself in a position where you can add the most value, and when you add the most value, the compensation will come to you,” he stated.

This idea of adding value was behind the $8 million endowment from the Robert and Janice McNair Foundation that launched the McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Rice University, one of six across the country. McNair said, “this is an opportunity for us to make a real contribution to society and to help create an environment that empowers ingenuity and creativity, unleashes the productivity of private enterprise and builds sustainable economic growth.”

Read more in the Baker Institute’s newsletter and the Rice Thresher’s article on the event.