March 2021 - Payments Systems in the U.S. by Carol Coye Benson, Scott Loftesness, and Russ Jones

This month we dive into the fintech space for the first time! Glenbrook Partners is a famous payments consulting company. This classic book describes the history and current state of the many financial systems we use every day. While the book is a bit dated and reads like a textbook, it throws in some great real-world observations and provides a great foundation for any payments novice!

Tech Themes

Mapping Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Networks. The major credit and debit card providers (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, China UnionPay, and Discover) all compete for the same spots in customer wallets but have unique and differing backgrounds and mechanics. The first credit card on the scene was the BankAmericard in the late 1950’s. As it took off, Bank of America started licensing the technology all across the US and created National BankAmericard Inc. (NBI) to facilitate its card program. NBI merged with its international counterpart (IBANCO) to form Visa in the mid-1970’s. Another group of California banks had created the Interbank Card Association (ICA) to compete with Visa and in 1979 renamed itself Mastercard. Both organizations remained owned by the banks until their IPO’s in 2006 (Mastercard) and 2008 (Visa). Both of these companies are known as open-loop networks, that is they work with any bank and require banks to sign up customers and merchants. As the bank points out, “This structure allows the two end parties to transact with each other without having direct relationships with each other’s banks.” This convenient feature of open-loop payments systems means that they can scale incredibly quickly. Any time a bank signs up a new customer or merchant, they immediately have access to the network of all other banks on the Mastercard / Visa network. In contrast to open-loop systems, American Express and Discover operate largely closed-loop systems, where they enroll each merchant and customer individually. Because of this onerous task of finding and signing up every single consumer/merchant, Amex and Discover cannot scale to nearly the size of Visa/Mastercard. However, there is no bank intermediation and the networks get total access to all transaction data, making them a go-to solution for things like loyalty programs, where a merchant may want to leverage data to target specific brand benefits at a customer. Open-loop systems like Apple Pay (its tied to your bank account) and closed-loop systems like Starbuck’s purchasing app (funds are pre-loaded and can only be redeemed at Starbucks) can be found everywhere. Even Snowflake, the data warehouse provider and subject of last month’s TBOTM is a closed-loop payments network. Customers buy Snowflake credits up-front, which can only be used to redeem Snowflake compute services. In contrast, AWS and other cloud’s are beginning to offer more open-loop style networks, where AWS credits can be redeemed against non-AWS software. Side note - these credit systems and odd-pricing structures deliberately mislead customers and obfuscate actual costs, allowing the cloud companies to better control gross margins and revenue growth. It’s fascinating to view the world through this open-loop / closed-loop dynamic.
New Kids on the Block - What are Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta? Stripe recently raised at a minuscule valuation of $95B, making it the highest valued private startup (ever?!). Marqeta, its API/card-issuing counterpart, is prepping a 2021 IPO that may value it at $10B. Adyen, a Dutch public company is worth close to $60B (Visa is worth $440B for comparison). Stripe and Marqeta are API-based payment service providers, which allow businesses to easily accept online payments and issue debit and credit cards for a variety of use cases. Adyen is a merchant account provider, which means it actually maintains the merchant account used to run a company’s business - this often comes with enormous scale benefits and reduced costs, which is why large customers like Nike have opted for Adyen. This merchant account clearing process can take quite a while which is why Stripe is focused on SMB’s - a business can sign up as a Stripe customer and almost immediately begin accepting online payments on the internet. Stripe and Marqeta’s API’s allow a seamless integration into payment checkout flows. On top of this basic but highly now simplified use case, Stripe and Marqeta (and Adyen) allow companies to issue debit and credit cards for all sorts of use cases. This is creating an absolute BOOM in fintech, as companies seek to try new and innovative ways of issuing credit/debit cards - such as expense management, banking-as-a-service, and buy-now-pay-later. Why is this now such a big thing when Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta were all created before 2011? In 2016, Visa launched its first developer API’s which allowed companies like Stripe, Adyen, and Marqeta to become licensed Visa card issuers - now any merchant could issue their own branded Visa card. That is why Andreessen Horowitz’s fintech partner Angela Strange proclaimed: “Every company will be a fintech company.” (this is also clearly some VC marketing)! Mastercard followed suit in 2019, launching its open API called the Mastercard Innovation Engine. The big networks decided to support innovation - Visa is an investor in Stripe and Marqeta, AmEx is an investor in Stripe, and Mastercard is an investor in Marqeta. Surprisingly, no network providers are investors in Adyen. Fintech innovation has always seen that the upstarts re-write the incumbents (Visa and Mastercard are bigger than the banks with much better business models) - will the same happen here?
Building a High Availability System. Do Mastercard and Visa have the highest availability needs of any system? Obviously, people are angry when Slack or Google Cloud goes down, but think about how many people are affected when Visa or Mastercard goes down? In 2018, a UK hardware failure prompted a five-hour outage at Visa: “Disgruntled customers at supermarkets, petrol stations and abroad vented their frustrations on social media when there was little information from the financial services firm. Bank transactions were also hit.” High availability is a measure of system uptime: “Availability is often expressed as a percentage indicating how much uptime is expected from a particular system or component in a given period of time, where a value of 100% would indicate that the system never fails. For instance, a system that guarantees 99% of availability in a period of one year can have up to 3.65 days of downtime (1%).” According to Statista, Visa handles ~185B transactions per year (a cool 6,000 per second), while UnionPay comes in second with 131B and Mastercard in third with 108B. For the last twelve months end June 30, 2020, Visa processed $8.7T in payments volume which means that the average transaction was ~$47. At 6,000 transactions per second, Visa loses $282,000 in payment volume every second it’s down. Mastercard and Visa have always been historically very cagey about disclosing data center operations (the only article I could find is from 2013) though they control their own operations much like other technology giants. “One of the keys to the [Visa] network's performance, Quinlan says, is capacity. And Visa has lots of it. Its two data centers--which are mirror images of each other and can operate interchangeably--are configured to process as many as 30,000 simultaneous transactions, or nearly three times as much as they've ever been asked to handle. Inside the pods, 376 servers, 277 switches, 85 routers, and 42 firewalls--all connected by 3,000 miles of cable--hum around the clock, enabling transactions around the globe in near real-time and keeping Visa's business running.” The data infrastructure challenges that payments systems are subjected to are massive and yet they all seem to perform very well. I’d love to learn more about how they do it!

Business Themes

What is interchange and why does it exist? BigCommerce has a great simple definition for interchange: “Interchange fees are transaction fees that the merchant's bank account must pay whenever a customer uses a credit/debit card to make a purchase from their store. The fees are paid to the card-issuing bank to cover handling costs, fraud and bad debt costs and the risk involved in approving the payment.” What is crazy about interchange is that it is not the banks, but the networks (Mastercard, Visa, China UnionPay) that set interchange rates. On top of that, the networks set the rates but receive no revenue from interchange itself. As the book points out: “Since the card netork’s issuing customers are the recipients of interchange fees, the level of interchange that a network sets is an important element in the network’s competitive position. A higher level of interchange on one network’s card products naturally makes that network’s card products more attractive to card issuers.” The incentives here are wild - the card issuers (banks) want higher interchange because they receive the interchange from the merchant’s bank in a transaction, the card networks want more card issuing customers and offering higher interchange rates better positions them in competitive battles. The merchant is left worse off by higher interchange rates, as the merchant bank almost always passes this fee on to the merchant itself ($100 received via credit card turns out to only be $97 when it gets to their bank account because of fees). Visa and Mastercard have different interchange rates for every type of transaction and acceptance method - making it a complicated nightmare to actually understand their fees. The networks and their issuers may claim that increased interchange fees allow banks to invest more in fraud protection, risk management, and handling costs, but there is no way to verify this claim. This has caused a crazy war between merchants, the card networks, and the card issuers.
Why is Jamie Dimon so pissed about fintechs? In a recent interview, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, recently called fintechs “examples of unfair competition.” Dimon is angry about the famous (or infamous) Durbin Amendment, which was a last-minute addition included in the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The Durbin amendment attempted to cap the interchange amount that could be charged by banks and tier the interchange rates based on the assets of the bank. In theory, capping the rates would mean that merchants paid less in fees, and the merchant would pass these lower fees onto the consumer by giving them lower prices thus spurring demand. The tiering would mean banks with >$10B in assets under management would make less in interchange fees, leveling the playing field for smaller banks and credit unions. “The regulated [bank with >$10B in assets] debit fee is 0.05% + $0.21, while the unregulated is 1.60% + $0.05. Before the Durbin Amendment the fee was 1.190% + $0.10.” While this did lower debit card interchange, a few unintended consequences resulted: 1. Regulators expected that banks would make substantially less revenue, however, they failed to recognize that banks might increase other fees to offset this lost revenue stream: “Banks have cut back on offering rewards for their debit cards. Banks have also started charging more for their checking accounts or they require a larger monthly balance.” In addition, many smaller banks couldn’t recoup the lost revenue amount, leading to many bankruptcies and consolidation. 2. Because a flat rate fee was introduced regardless of transaction size, smaller merchants were charged more in interchange than the prior system (which was pro-rated based on $ amount). “One problem with the Durbin Amendment is that it didn’t take small transactions into account,” said Ellen Cunningham, processing expert at CardFellow.com. “On a small transaction, 22 cents is a bigger bite than on a larger transaction. Convenience stores, coffee shops and others with smaller sales benefited from the original system, with a lower per-transaction fee even if it came with a higher percentage.” These small retailers ended up raising prices in some instances to combat these additional fees - causing the law to have the opposite effect of lowering costs to consumers. Dimon is angry that this law has allowed fintech companies to start charging higher prices for debit card transactions. As shown above, smaller banks earn a substantial amount more in interchange fees. These smaller banks are moving quickly to partner with fintechs, which now power hundreds of millions of dollars in account balances and Dimon believes they are not spending enough attention on anti-money laundering and fraud practices. In addition, fintech’s are making money in suspect ways - Chime makes 21% of its revenue through high out-of-network ATM fees, and cash advance companies like Dave, Branch, and Earnin’ are offering what amount to pay-day loans to customers.
Mastercard and Visa: A history of regulation. Visa and Mastercard have been the subject of many regulatory battles over the years. The US Justice Department announced in March that it would be investigating Visa over online debit-card practices. In 1996, Visa and Mastercard were sued by merchants and settled for $3B. In 1998, the Department of Justice won a case against Visa and Mastercard for not allowing issuing banks to work with other card networks like AmEx and Discover. In 2009, Mastercard and Visa were sued by the European Union and forced to reduce debit card swipe fees by 0.2%. In 2012, Mastercard and Visa were sued for price-fixing fees and were forced to pay $6.25B in a settlement. The networks have been sued by the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, ATM Operators, Intuit, Starbucks, Amazon, Walmart, and many more. Each time they have been forced to modify fees and practices to ensure competition. However, this has also re-inforced their dominance as the biggest payment networks which is why no competitors have been established since the creation of the networks in the 1970’s. Also, leave it to the banks to establish a revenue source that is so good that it is almost entirely undefeatable by legislation. When, if ever, will Visa and Mastercard not be dominant payments companies?

Dig Deeper

November 2020 - Tape Sucks: Inside Data Domain, A Silicon Valley Growth Story by Frank Slootman

This month we read a short, under-discussed book by current Snowflake and former ServiceNow and Data Domain CEO, Frank Slootman. The book is just like Frank - direct and unafraid. Frank has had success several times in the startup world and the story of Data Domain provides a great case study of entrepreneurship. Data Domain was a data deduplication company, offering a 20:1 reduction of data backed up to tape casettes by using new disk drive technology.

Tech Themes

Data Domain’s 2008 10-K prior to being acquired

First time CEO at a Company with No Revenue. Frank is an immigrant to the US, coming from the Netherlands shortly after graduating from the University of Rotterdam. After being rejected by IBM 10+ times, he joined Burroughs corporation, an early mainframe provider which subsequently merged with its direct competitor Sperry for $4.8B in 1986. Frank then spent some time at Compuware and moved back to the Netherlands to help it integrate the acquisition of Uniface, an early customizable report building software. After spending time there, he went to Borland software in 1997, working his way up the product management ranks but all the while being angered by time spent lobbying internally, rather than building. Frank joined Data Domain in the Spring of 2003 - when it had no customers, no revenue, and was burning cash. The initial team and VC’s were impressive - Kai Li, a computer science professor on sabbatical from Princeton, Ben Zhu, an EIR at USVP, and Brian Biles, a product leader with experience at VA Linux and Sun Microsystems. The company was financed by top-tier VC’s New Enterprise Associates and Greylock Partners, with Aneel Bhusri (Founder and current CEO of Workday) serving as initial CEO and then board chairman. This was a stacked team and Slootman knew it: “I’d bring down the average IQ of the company by joining, which felt right to me.” The Company had been around for 18 months and already burned through a significant amount of money when Frank joined. He knew he needed to raise money relatively soon after joining and put the Company’s chances bluntly: “Would this idea really come together and captivate customers? Nobody knew. We, the people on the ground floor, were perhaps, the most surprised by the extraordinary success we enjoyed.”
Playing to his Strengths: Capital Efficiency. One of the big takeaways from the Innovators by Walter Issacson was that individuals or teams at the nexus of disciplines - primarily where the sciences meet the humanities, often achieved breakthrough success. The classic case study for this is Apple - Steve Jobs had an intense love of art, music, and design and Steve Wozniak was an amazing technologist. Frank has cultivated a cross-discipline strength at the intersection of Sales and Technology. This might be driven by Slootman’s background is in economics. The book has several references to economic terms, which clearly have had an impact on Frank’s thinking. Data Domain espoused capital efficiency: “We traveled alone, made few many-legged sales calls, and booked cheap flights and hotels: everybody tried to save a dime for the company.” The results showed - the business went from $800K of revenue in 2004 to $275 million by 2008, generating $75M in cash flow from operations. Frank’s capital efficiency was interesting and broke from traditional thinking - most people think to raise a round and build something. Frank took a different approach: “When you are not yet generating revenue, conservation of resource is the dominant theme.” Over time, “when your sales activity is solidly paying for itself,” the spending should shift from conservative to aggressive (like Snowflake is doing this now). The concept of sales efficiency is somewhat talked about, but given the recent fundraising environment, is often dismissed. Sales efficiency can be thought of as: “How much revenue do I generate for every $1 spent in sales and marketing?” Looking at the P&L below, we see Data Domain was highly efficient in its sales and marketing activity - the company increased revenue $150M in 2008, despite spending $115M in sales and marketing (a ratio of 1.3x). Contrast this with a company like Slack which spent $403M to acquire $230M of new revenue (a ratio of 0.6x). It gets harder to acquire customers at scale, so this efficiency is supposed to come down over time but best in class is hopefully above 1x. Frank clearly understands when to step on the gas with investing, as both ServiceNow and Snowflake have remained fairly efficient (from a sales perspective at least) while growing to a significant scale.
Technology for Technology’s Sake. “Many technologies are conceived without a clear, precise notion of the intended use.” Slootman hits on a key point and one that the tech industry has struggled to grasp throughout its history. So many products and companies are established around budding technology with no use case. We’ve discussed Magic Leap’s fundraising money-pit (still might find its way), and Iridium Communications, the massive satellite telephone that required people to carry a suitcase around to use it. Gartner, the leading IT research publication (which is heavily influenced by marketing spend from companies) established the Technology Hype Cycle, complete with the “Peak of inflated expectations,” and the “Trough of Disillusionment” for categorizing technologies that fail to live up to their promise. There have been several waves that have come and gone: AR/VR, Blockchain, and most recently, Serverless. Its not so much that these technologies were wrong or not useful, its rather that they were initially described as a panacea to several or all known technology hindrances and few technologies ever live up to that hype. Its common that new innovations spur tons of development but also lots of failure, and this is Slootman’s caution to entrepreneurs. Data Domain was attacking a problem that existed already (tape storage) and the company provided what Clayton Christensen would call a sustaining innovation (something that Slootman points out). Whenever things go into “winter state”, like the internet after the dot-com bubble, or the recent Crpyto Winter which is unthawing as I write; it is time to pay attention and understand the relevance of the innovation.

Business Themes

Importance of Owning Sales. Slootman spends a considerable amount of this small book discussing sales tactics and decision making, particularly with respect to direct sales and OEM relationships. OEM deals are partnerships with other companies whereby one company will re-sell the software, hardware, or service of another company. Crowdstrike is a popular product with many OEM relationships. The Company drives a significant amount of its sales through its partner model, who re-sell on behalf of Crowdstrike. OEM partnerships with big companies present many challenges: “First of all, you get divorced from your customer because the OEM is now between you and them, making customer intimacy challenging. Plus, as the OEM becomes a large part of your business, for all intents and purposes they basically own you without paying for the privilege…Never forget that nobody wants to sell your product more than you do.” The challenges don’t end there. Slootman points out that EMC discarded their previous OEM vendor in the data deduplication space, right after acquiring Data Domain. On top of that, the typical reseller relationship happens at a 10-20% margin, degrading gross margins and hurting ability to invest. It is somewhat similar to the challenges open-source companies like MongoDB and Elastic have run into with their core software being…free. Amazon can just OEM their offering and cut them out as a partner, something they do frequently. Partner models can be sustainable, but the give and take from the big company is a tough balance to strike. Investors like organic adoption, especially recently with the rise of freemium SaaS models percolating in startups. Slootman’s point is that at some point in enterprise focused businesses, the Company must own direct sales (and relationships) with its customers to drive real efficiency. After the low cost to acquire freemium adopters buy the product, the executive team must pivot to traditional top down enterprise sales to drive a successful and enduring relationship with the customer.
In the Thick of Things. Slootman has some very concise advice for CEOs: be a fighter, show some humanity, and check your ego at the door. “Running a startup reduces you to your most elementary instincts, and survival is on your mind most of the time…The CEO is the ‘Chief Combatant,’ warrior number one.” Slootman views the role of CEO as a fighter, ready to be the first to jump into the action, at all times. And this can be incredibly productive for business as well. Tony Xu, the founder and CEO of Doordash, takes time out every month to do delivery for his own company, in order to remain close to the customer and the problems of the company. Jeff Bezos famously still responds and views emails from customers at jeff@amazon.com. Being CEO also requires a willingness to put yourself out there and show your true personality. As Slootman puts it: “People can instantly finger a phony. Let them know who you really are, warts and all.” As CEO you are tasked with managing so many people and being involved in all aspects of the business, it is easy to become rigid and unemotional in everyday interactions. Harvard Business School professor and former leader at Uber distills it down to a simple phrase: “Begin With Trust.” All CEO’s have some amount of ego, driving them to want to be at the top of their organization. Slootman encourages CEO’s to be introspective, and try to recognize blind spots, so ego doesn’t drive day-to-day interactions with employees. One way to do that is simple: use the pronoun “we” when discussing the company you are leading. Though Slootman doesn’t explicitly call it out - all of these suggestions (fighting, showing empathy, getting rid of ego) are meant to build trust with employees.
R-E-C-I-P-E for a Great Culture. The last fifth of the book is all focused on building culture at companies. It is the only topic Slootman stays on for more than a few chapters, so you know its important! RECIPE was an acronym created by the employees at Data Domain to describe the company’s values: Respect, Excellence, Customer, Integrity, Performance, Execution. Its interesting how simple and focused these values are. Technology has pushed its cultural delusion’s of grandeur to an extreme in recent years. The WeWork S-1 hilariously started with: “We are a community company committed to maximum global impact. Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness.” But none of Data Domain’s values were about changing the world to be a better place - they were about doing excellent, honest work for customers. Slootman is lasered focused on culture, and specifically views culture as an asset - calling it: “The only enduring, sustainable form of differentiation. These days, we don’t have a monopoly for very long on talent, technology, capital, or any other asset; the one thing that is unique to us is how we choose to come together as a group of people, day in and day out. How many organizations are there that make more than a halfhearted attempt at this?” Technology companies have taken different routes in establishing culture: Google and Facebook have tried to create culture by showering employees with unbelievable benefits, Netflix has focused on pure execution and transparency, and Microsoft has re-vamped its culture by adopting a Growth Mindset (has it really though?). Google originally promoted “Don’t be evil,” as part of its Code of Conduct but dropped the motto in 2018. Employees want to work for mission-driven organizations, but not all companies are really changing the world with their products, and Frank did not try to sugarcoat Data Domain’s data-duplication technology as a way to “elevate the world’s consciousness.” He created a culture driven by performance and execution - providing a useful product to businesses that needed it. The culture was so revered that post-acquisition, EMC instituted Data Domain’s performance management system. Data Domain employees were looked at strangely by longtime EMC executives, who had spent years in a big and stale company. Culture is a hard thing to replicate and a hard thing to change as we saw with the Innovator’s Dilemma. Might as well use it to help the company succeed!

Dig Deeper

March 2020 - The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz

Ben Horowitz, GP of the famous investment fund Andreessen Horowitz, addresses the not-so-pleasant aspects of being a founder/CEO during a crisis. This book provides an excellent framework for anyone going through the struggles of scaling a business and dealing with growing pains.

Tech Themes

The importance of Netscape. Now that its been relegated to history by the rise of AOL and internet explorer, its hard to believe that Netscape was ever the best web browser. Founded by Marc Andreessen, who had founded the first web browser, Mosaic (as a teenager!), Netscape would go on to achieve amazing success only to blow up in the face of competition and changes to internet infrastructure. Netscape was an incredible technology company, and as Brian McCullough shows in last month’s TBOTM, Netscape was the posterchild for the internet bubble. But for all the fanfare around Netscape’s seminal IPO, little is discussed about its massive and longstanding technological contributions. In 1995, early engineer Brendan Eich created Javascript, which still stands as the dominant front end language for the web. In the same year, the Company developed Secure Socket Layer (SSL), the most dominant basic internet security protocol (and reason for HTTPS). On top of those two fundamental technologies, Netscape also developed the internet cookie, in 1994! Netscape is normally discussed as the amazing company that ushered many of the first internet users onto the web, but its rarely lauded for its longstanding technological contributions. Ben Horowitz, author of the Hard Thing About Hard Things was an early employee and head of the server business unit for Netscape when it went public.
Executing a pivot. Famous pivots have become part of startup lore whether it be in product (Glitch (video game) —> Slack (chat)), business model (Netflix DVD rental —> Streaming), or some combo of both (Snowdevil (selling snowboards online) —> Shopify (ecommerce tech)). The pivot has been hailed as necessary tool in every entrepreneur’s toolbox. Though many are sensationalized, the pivot Ben Horowitz underwent at LoudCloud / Opsware is an underrated one. LoudCloud was a provider of web hosting services and managed services for enterprises. The Company raised a boatload ($346M) of money prior to going public in March 2001, after the internet bubble had already burst. The Company was losing a lot of money and Ben knew that the business was on its last legs. After executing a 400 person layoff, he sold the managed services part of the business to EDS, a large IT provider, for $63.5M. LoudCloud had a software tool called Opsware that it used to manage all of the complexities of the web hosting business, scaling infrastructure with demand and managing compliance in data centers. After the sale was executed, the company’s stock fell to $0.35 per share, even trading below cash, which meant the markets viewed the Company as already bankrupt. The acquisition did something very important for Ben and the Opsware team, it bought them time - the Company had enough cash on hand to execute until Q4 2001 when it had to be cash flow positive. To balance out these cash issues, Opsware purchased Tangram, Rendition Networks, and Creekpath, which were all software vendors that helped manage the software of data centers. This had two effects - slowing the burn (these were profitable companies), and building a substantial product offering for data center providers. Opsware started making sales and the stock price began to tick up, peaking the attention of strategic acquirers. Ultimately it came down to BMC Software and HP. BMC offered $13.25 per share, the Opsware board said $14, BMC countered with $13.50 and HP came in with a $14.25 offer, a 38% premium to the stock price and a total valuation of $1.6B, which the board could not refuse. The Company changed business model (services —> software), made acquisitions and successfully exited, amidst a terrible environment for tech companies post-internet bubble.
The Demise of the Great HP. Hewlett-Packard was one of the first garage-borne, silicon valley technology companies. The company was founded in Palo Alto by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard in 1939 as a provider of test and measurement instruments. Over the next 40 years, the company moved into producing some of the best printers, scanners, calculators, logic analyzers, and computers in the world. In the 90s, HP continued to grow its product lines in the computing space, and executed a spinout of its manufacturing / non-computing device business in 1999. 1999 marks the tragic beginning of the end for HP. The first massive mistake was the acquisition of Compaq, a flailing competitor in the personal computer market, who had acquired DEC (a losing microprocessor company), a few years earlier. The acquisition was heavily debated, with Walter Hewlett, son of the founder and board director at the time, engaging in a proxy battle with then current CEO, Carly Firorina. The new HP went on to lose half of its market value and incur heavy job losses that were highly publicized. This started a string of terrible acquisitions including EDS, 3COM, Palm Inc., and Autonomy for a combined $28.8B. The Company spun into two divisions - HP Inc. and HP Enterprise in 2015 and each had their own spinouts and mergers from there (Micro Focus and DXC Technology). Today, HP Inc. sells computers and printers, and HPE sells storage, networking and server technology. What can be made of this sad tale? HP suffered from a few things. First, poor long term direction - in hindsight their acquisitions look especially terrible as a repeat series of massive bets on technology that was already being phased out due to market pressures. Second, HP had horrible corporate governance during the late 90s and 2000s - board in-fighting over acquisitions, repeat CEO fiirings over cultural issues, chairman-CEO’s with no checks, and an inability to see the outright fraud in their Autonomy acquisition. Lastly, the Company saw acquisitions and divestitures as band-aids - new CEO entrants Carly Fiorina (from AT&T), Mark Hurd (from NCR), Leo Apotheker (from SAP), and Meg Whitman (from eBay) were focused on making an impact at HP which meant big acquisitions and strategic shifts. Almost none of these panned out, and the repeated ideal shifts took a toll on the organization as the best talent moved elswehere. Its sad to see what has happened at a once-great company.

Business Themes

Ill, not sick: going public at the end of the internet bubble. Going public is supposed to be the culmination of a long entrepreneurial journey for early company employees, but according to Ben Horowitz’s experience, going public during the internet bubble pop was terrible. Loudcloud had tried to raise money privately but struggled given the terrible conditions for raising money at the beginning of 2001. Its not included in the book but the reason the Company failed to raise money was its obscene valuation and loss. The Company was valued at $1.15B in its prior funding round and could only report $6M in Net Revenue on a $107M loss. The Company sought to go public at $10 per share ($700M valuation), but after an intense and brutal roadshow that left Horowitz physically sick, they settled for $6.00 per share, a massive write-down from the previous round. The fact that the banks were even able to find investors to take on this significant risk at this point in the business cycle was a marvel. Timing can be crucial in an IPO as we saw during the internet bubble; internet “businesses” could rise 4-5x on their first trading day because of the massive and silly web landgrab in the late 90s. On the flip side, going public when investors don’t want what you’re selling is almost a death sentence. Although they both have critical business and market issues, WeWork and Casper are clear examples of the importance of timing. WeWork and Casper were late arrivals on the unicorn IPO train. Let me be clear - both have huge issues (WeWork - fundamental business model, Casper - competition/differentiation) but I could imagine these types of companies going public during a favorable time period with a relatively strong IPO. Both companies had massive losses, and investors were especially wary of losses after the failed IPOs of Lyft and Uber, which were arguably the most famous unicorns to go public at the time. Its not to say that WeWork and Casper wouldn’t have had trouble in the public markets, but during the internet bubble these companies could’ve received massive valuations and raised tons of cash instead of seeking bailouts from Softbank and reticent public market investors.
Peactime / Wartime CEO. The genesis of this book was a 2011 blog post written by Horowitz detailing Peacetime and Wartime CEO behavior. As the book and blog post describe, “Peacetime in business means those times when a company has a large advantage vs. the competition in its core market, and its market is growing. In times of peace, the company can focus on expanding the market and reinforcing the company’s strengths.” On the other hand, to describe Wartime, Horowitz uses the example of a previous TBOTM, Only the Paranoid Survive, by Andy Grove. In the early 1980’s, Grove realized his business was under serious threat as competition increased in Intel’s core business, computer memory. Grove shifted the entire organization whole-heartedly into chip manufacturing and saved the company. Horowitz outlines several opposing behaviors of Peacetime and Wartime CEOs: “Peacetime CEO knows that proper protocol leads to winning. Wartime CEO violates protocol in order to win; Peacetime CEO spends time defining the culture. Wartime CEO lets the war define the culture; Peacetime CEO strives for broad based buy in. Wartime CEO neither indulges consensus-building nor tolerates disagreements.” Horowitz concludes that executives can be a peacetime and wartime CEO after mastering each of the respective skill sets and knowing when to shift from peacetime to wartime and back. The theory is interesting to consider; at its best, it provides an excellent framework for managing times of stress (like right now with the Coronavirus). At its worst, it encourages poor CEO behavior and cut throat culture. While I do think its a helpful theory, I think its helpful to think of situations that may be an exception, as a way of testing the theory. For example, lets consider Google, as Horowitz does in his original article. He calls out that Google was likely entering in a period of wartime in 2011 and as a result transitioned CEOs away from peacetime Eric Schmidt to Google founder and wartime CEO, Larry Page. Looking back however, was it really clear that Google was entering wartime? The business continued to focus on what it was clearly best at, online search advertising, and rarely faced any competition. The Company was late to invest in cloud technology and many have criticized Google for pushing billions of dollars into incredibly unprofitable ventures because they are Larry and Sergey’s pet projects. In addition, its clear that control had been an issue for Larry all along - in 2011, it came out that Eric Schmidt’s ouster as CEO was due to a disagreement with Larry and Sergey over continuing to operate in China. On top of that, its argued that Larry and Sergey, who have controlling votes in Google, stayed on too long and hindered Sundar Pichai’s ability to effectively operate the now restructured Alphabet holding company. In short, was Google in a wartime from 2011-2019? I would argue no, it operated in its core market with virtually no competition and today most Google’s revenues come from its ad products. I think the peacetime / wartime designation is rarely so black and white, which is why it is so hard to recognize what period a Company may be in today.
Firing people. The unfortunate reality of business is that not every hire works out, and that eventually people will be fired. The Hard Thing About Hard Things is all about making difficult decisions. It lays out a framework for thinking about and executing layoffs, which is something that’s rarely discussed in the startup ecosystem until it happens. Companies mess up layoffs all the time, just look at Bird who recently laid off staff via an impersonal Zoom call. Horowitz lays out a roughly six step process for enacting layoffs and gives the hard truths about executing the 400 person layoff at LoudCloud. Two of these steps stand out because they have been frequently violated at startups: Don’t Delay and Train Your Managers. Often times, the decision to fire someone can be a months long process, continually drawn out and interrupted by different excuses. Horowitz encourages CEOs to move thoughtfully and quickly to stem leaks of potential layoffs and to not let poor performers continue to hurt the organization. The book discusses the Law of Crappy People - any level of any organization will eventually converge to the worst person on that level; benchmarked against the crappiest person at the next level. Once a CEO has made her mind up about the decision to fire someone, she should go for it. As part of executing layoffs, CEOs should train their managers, and the managers should execute the layoffs. This gives employees the opportunity to seek direct feedback about what went well and what went poorly. This aspect of the book is incredibly important for all levels of entrepreneurs and provides a great starting place for CEOs.

Dig Deeper

November 2019 - Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club of Silicon Valley by Emily Chang

This book details a number of factors that have discouraged women’s participation and promotion in the tech industry. Emily Chang gives a brief history of the circumstances that have pushed women away from the industry and then covers its current issues - weaving in great insights and actionable takeaways along the way.

Tech Themes

The Antisocial Programmer. As the necessity for technological talent began to rise in the early 1960s, many existing companies were unsure how to hire the right people. To address this shortfall in know-how, companies used standard aptitude tests, like IBM’s Programmer Aptitude Test, to examine whether a candidate was capable of applying the right problem solving skills on the job. Beyond these standard aptitude tests, companies leveraged personality exams. In 1966, a large software company called System Development Corporation hired William Cannon and Dallis Perry to build a personality test that could shed light on the right personalities needed on the job. To build this personality test, Cannon and Perry profiled 1,378 programmers on a range of personality traits. Of those 1,378 profiled, only 186 were women. After compiling their findings, the final report stated: “[Programmers] dislike activities involving close personal interaction; they are generally more interested in things than people.” Furthermore, Cannon and Perry’s 82-page paper made no reference to women at all, referring to the surveyed group as men, for the entire paper. A combination of aptitude tests and Cannon-Perry’s personality test became the industry standard for recruiting, and soon companies were mistakenly focused on stereotypical antisocial programmers. Antisocial personality disorder is three times more common in men than women. Given how early the tech industry was, compared to what it is now, this decision to hire a majority of anti-social men has propagated throughout the industry, with senior leaders continually reinforcing incorrect hiring standards.
Women in Computer Science. According to the book, “there was an overall peak in bachelor’s degrees awarded in computer science in the mid-1980s, and a peak in the percentage of women receiving those degrees at nearly 40 percent. And then there was a steep decline in both.” It was at this time in the mid-1980s that computer science departments began to turn away anyone who was not a pre-qualified, academic top performer. There was too much demand with a constrained supply of qualified teachers, so only the best kids were allowed into top programs. This caused students to view computer science as hyper-competitive and unwelcoming to individuals without significant experience. Today, women earn only 18% of computer science degrees – a statistic that shocks many in the industry. Researchers at NPR found that intro CS courses play a key role in this problem – with many teachers still assuming students have prior familiarity with coding. Furthermore, women are socialized in a number of ways to achieve perfection, so when brand new code is not working well, women are more likely to feel discouraged. It is imperative to encourage women to try computer science if they have interest, to combat these negative trends.
PayPal and Perpetuating Cycles. After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, several newly minted millionaires did the natural thing after selling a company for millions of dollars, became a venture capitalists. One of the major success stories of the era was PayPal. Among those newly minted millionaires were the PayPal mafia: Peter Thiel, Keith Rabois, Elon Musk, Max Levchin, David Sacks, and Reid Hoffman. Thiel and Rabois have a history of suggesting a meritocratic process of hiring where only the most qualified academic candidate should land the job, not taking into account diversity of any form. Furthermore, in his book Zero to One (which we’ve discussed before), Thiel proposes startups should hire only “nerds of the same type.” The mafia began investing in several new companies, seeding friends who were likely to perpetuate the cycle of recruiting friends and hiring based on status alone. Rabois, who is currently a venture capitalist has remarked: “Once you have alignment, then I think you can have a wide swath of people, views and perspectives.” These ideas seem more like justification for hiring large groups of white males who were friends of PayPal executives than a truly “meritocratic” process, which is not the best way of building a successful, diverse organization. Roger McNamee, founder of technology private equity firm, Silver Lake, suggests: “They didn’t just perpetuate it; they turned it into a fine art. They legitimized it… The guys were born into the right part of the gene pool, they wind up at the right company, at the right moment in time, they all leave together and [go on] to work together. I give them full credit for it but calling it a meritocracy is laughable.”

Business Themes

chartoftheday_4467_female_employees_at_tech_companies_n.jpg

The Women at Early Google. A lot of people know the story of Sergey Brin meeting co-founder Larry Page. But few are aware of when Sergey and Larry met Susan Wojcicki, who is now CEO of YouTube. Sergey and Larry were looking for office space, and through a mutual friend, were introduced to Susan Wojcicki, who worked in marketing at Intel at the time. Though she didn’t jump on board immediately, Susan eventually came around and was instrumental in launching two of Google’s most important products: AdWords and AdSense. Wojcicki would soon be working closely with a newly recruited, Marissa Mayer, who after graduating from Stanford with a degree in Symbolic Systems, joined Google to help build AdWords and design Google’s front-end. Wojcicki and Mayer would soon be joined by Sheryl Sandberg, who came to Google in 2001 as Vice President of Online Sales and Operations. Another now-famous early female employee was Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor, who joined the company in 2004. All of these early, powerful female leaders, with the continued urging of Larry and Sergey (who wanted to achieve a 50/50 ratio of male to female employees) helped build a strong culture of female leadership. But as the Company scaled it lost sight of its gender diversity goals – “In 2017, women accounted for 31% of employees overall, 25% of leadership roles and 20% of technical roles.” Google claims it lost touch as it scaled, when the need for hiring outpaced the ability to find qualified and diverse candidates – but that sounds like an easy cop out.
Startups and Party Culture. Atari and Trilogy Software pioneered the idea of a work-hard, play-hard startup cultures. Nolan Bushnell of Atari would throw wild parties and have employees (including Steve Jobs) work late into the night, building for the company. Trilogy, a provider of sales and marketing software, extended this idea even further. It started with hiring, where, according to a former engineer, Trilogy’s ethos was: “We’re elite talent. It’s potential and talent, not experience, that has merit.” The Company regularly used complicated brain-teasers in interviews and attracted swaths of anti-social engineers with young and attractive talent recruiters. Joe Liemandt, the CEO of Trilogy, also moved the company to Austin, Texas; executives likened the tactic to marooning members of a cult. Co-founder Christy Jones remarked: “I didn’t go on vacation. We called holidays competitive advantage days because no one else was working. It was a chance to get ahead.” The Company had a strong drinking and partying culture and bares striking cult-like resemblance to WeWork, except it had a sustainable business model. Other technology companies have mixed constant alcohol and long hours, which has led to numerous assault charges at well-known startups including Uber, Zenefits, WeWork and others. Startup and party culture does not need to be so intertwined.
Hiring Practices to Encourage Diverse Backgrounds. Stewart Butterfield, the founder of Flickr (sold to Yahoo for $20 million in 2005), has focused on diverse hiring efforts at his new company Slack. According to Brotopia, “In 2017, Slack reported that 43.5% of its employees were women, including 48% of managers and almost 30% of technical employees – far better numbers than any tech company in Silicon Valley.” Butterfield, who grew up on a commune in Canada, recognizes his privilege, and discusses its not insanely difficult to create a diverse environment: “As an already successful, white, male, straight – go down the list – I’m not going to have the relevant experience to determine what makes this a good workplace, so some of that is just being open but really just making it an explicit focus.” Slack’s diverse recruiting team was given explicit instructions to source candidates from underrepresented backgrounds and schools for every new role in the organization. More companies should follow Slack’s lead and adopt explicit gender and diversity goals.