From the category archives:

Investing

I’m a regular listener to the excellent Planet Money podcast by a team over at NPR that makes economics fun and engaging (or rather more fun and engaging).

Catching up today, I listened to their podcast: A Private-Equity Boss In Four-Inch Stilettos about Lynn Tilton, CEO and founder of Patriarch Partners. Patriarch describes itself as:

A vertically integrated distressed private equity firm with robust in-house operational turnaround expertise

Basically they are a $7 billion PE outfit that specialises in companies about to go bankrupt. The Planet Money team followed Lynn and one of her investments, catalog company Spiegel and listened to their experience about being rescued through private equity money.

It was down to the wire for Spiegel for getting the investment from Patriarch to save the company. The managing director was already at the stage of talking to their bank’s liquidators about selling the rest of Spiegel’s merchandise of clothes and accessories and closing things down.

To hear Speigel tell it in the story, it very much seems the bank’s only focus was on selling the remaining merchandise and not on the Spiegel brand or its other intangible assets, such as its long customer relationships and sales database or its e-commerce platform.

From an IP perspective, ignoring the intangible assets misses a HUGE likely chunk of the value of a company. For most companies these days, the largest part of their value will be their intangible and IP assets. It very much seems like Lynn and Patriarch saw the value of Spiegel’s IP assets where the bank did not and snapped up quite a deal.

The sad thing is that from what we hear, many times in bankruptcy or insolvency the true value of the IP gets lost and the focus goes back to calculations around the bricks and mortar physical assets.

Definitely worth a listen.

{ 1 comment }

Economist Article on IV

by Andrew Watson on 24 February 2010

I see that the Economist online are running an article titled Brilliant Inventor or Patent Troll about Nathan and IV at http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15570585

A view. To try to make this simple to understand.

To call Nathan or IV a troll is incredibly simplistic.

IV has built one of the Worlds most sophisticated businesses and it has the potential to have substantial direct and indirect returns for its shareholders. IVs people are amongst the brightest IP and business minds you could wish to find anywhere. And what they have done is combine lots of the smartest and newest ways of creating value from IP into the same entity in a patent and IP play on an absolutely massive scale.

 They are an invention house, and have adopted and reinvented leading edge patent strategies to create a portfolio of their own IP which, in its own, would be of high high worth.

 In combination they have acquired patents, hard to say how many as they are very private, but lots of patents on an unprecedented scale. Some say they have 30,000 patent families, but it is impossible to know exactly how many. What is believed though is that this number puts them in the Premier league (up there with IBM, Nokia, Qualcomm and others) in terms of IP influence. The buying has not come cheap but they’ve worked hard on starting with buying anything to moving to buying quality.

 And along the way they’ve worked hard on their IP reputation. Ask people who know anything and they’d say that if IV breathes in your direction, take a license. Perfect in the US world of IP where licenses are cheaper than litigation so companies like Acacia Research, a genuine troll, can prosper. But they don’t want to see seen to be litigators…that’s bad for reputation so they outsource that part to others who aren’t so bothered about what the outside world thinks of them.

 This is IP genius on a scale never seen before and which would be hard to come close to replicating again in a generation given what IV has successfully done. If you imagine or remember one of those days when the idea you had could change the world. Amazingly though almost nobody outside of the IP community and largely outside of the US has a clue that this is going on. Which it has been for 10 years.

The full impact of this is to be seen. What Nathan though appears to realise in his public statements is that all things intangible make up a large and unexplained part of shareholder value. The accountants don’t explain it, shareholders don’t ask about it, most business leaders don’t understand it. It still amazes me that people don’t even ask! IV is playing an arbitrage game; it knows what is valuable and it knows the value to it of what its buying. The sellers do not.

 This is grand and to be complimented. It will be hugely successful.

 Andrew

{ 24 comments }

eBay and Skype-settled

November 9, 2009

It is reported overnight on the newswires that the Joltid and eBay dispute has been settled with the two former Skype founders taking a stake in the new Skype vehicle in return for dropping their claims. It seems like a common sense end to the disputes and Skype v2.0 (or is it 3.0) will no [...]

Read the full article →

Reminder: EVCA webinar tomorrow

September 22, 2009

Just a quick note to highlight that our first in a series of webinars on IP and investing for the European Venture Capital Association with Bernd Geiger of Triangle Venture Capital Group is tomorrow, 23 September 2009 at 12 noon UK time (BST) or 13:00 CEST. The debut session will dive right in and tackle Best Practise in [...]

Read the full article →

New EVCA webinar on IP due diligence

September 2, 2009

Just a quick note to say that we are really excited to be participating in a new webinar series for the European Venture Capital Association on IP and investing. Thank you very much to Bernd Geiger of Triangle Venture Capital Group and to Mineke and Ferhan of the EVCA team for thinking of us and [...]

Read the full article →

IP ownership issues not just for Skype and eBay

August 27, 2009

The recent Skype / eBay story around ownership flags up all sorts of things in what we see in our line of work around IP strategy: IP ownership issues as a rule are always present, and can be very, very costly to fix (but very cheap to fix if caught early). A short Timeline 2001 [...]

Read the full article →

Accounting, intangibles, and the balance sheet

May 19, 2009

We had a really interesting conversation with an accounting practice the other week about our approach to IP and their work on reporting within corporates on intangibles.  This was one of a series of conversations we’ve been having from people who see IP from the outside –> in,  while we here at ipVA are IP [...]

Read the full article →

Patents as the wrong kind of signal

May 8, 2009

In an earlier post I discussed having patents as a signal to external (potential) investors and analysts about the quality of a company’s IP and that they take IP seriously. This is because: For some people, having a patent says: “We know about the IP system, we use it, and we are protected.” Conversely, if [...]

Read the full article →

MIP Webinar: Catalysing the European IP market

February 9, 2009

Together with the team at Exponent IP, we’ve helped organise a webinar with Managing IP on the European IP services market on February 26 at 2pm GMT. Speakers in the hour-long web seminar will: Discuss where the global IP service market is heading; Ask why Europe lags behind the US; Explain the European perspective on [...]

Read the full article →

Value of business intangibles over at IAM

January 26, 2009

Just a quick note to say that there is an involved discussion on how to value intangibles as part of a company, which will be expanded in an upcoming issue of IAM by Nir Kossovsky of IAFS. The gist: [T]hat corporate intangible values in the US … have collapsed over the last 12 to 18 [...]

Read the full article →