Connect with us

Business

SVB fueled high-risk, high reward tech firms. Now health start ups feel bereft.

Published

on

svb-fueled-high-risk,-high-reward-tech-firms-now-health-start-ups-feel-bereft.

Bill Hunter, who was the founder of three health startups in three decades and a boss in each of them, took many risks throughout his career. Bill Hunter’s corporate bank going out of business was not one of them.

Hunter was flying from Las Vegas to Vancouver in Canada last week while Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), a bank based in California, was trying to raise capital and find a buyer. By the time Hunter landed in Vancouver, Canada three hours later SVB was shut down by US regulators following what has been described as the “first Twitter-fueled bank run”.

The collapse of SVB, the largest bank failure in the US after the 2008 financial crisis has sent shockwaves throughout the tech sector. SVB had been catering to this sector for over 40 years.

The US federal government has taken steps to ensure that its clients will have access to all of their deposits. However, entrepreneurs are worried that the bank’s failure could leave a large void and cash to fund their ventures might dry up.

SVB, founded in 1983, had become the go-to lender of choice for US start ups that were deemed too risky by traditional banks. In the US, SVB did business with almost half of all venture-backed technology and life science companies as of last year.

Hunter told Euronews Next that “These guys focused specifically on the small and developing companies and they were a heavyweight in this space.”

“There were a few little ones scattered around, but the biggest ones had a broad reach.” It’s a big blow and it will have an impact for a long time.

A special bank

SVB is a major bank for the life sciences and healthcare industries. About 12 percent of its $173 billion (EUR161billion) in deposits belongs to companies in this sector.

Pharma and health tech, in particular, is a risky business. When founders are looking for investors to invest in their ideas, it can be difficult.

Hunter struggled with his previous start-up in Switzerland, a specialty pharmaceutical company, to open a corporate account.

“A lot banks don’t want to take your money, not even if it is a decent amount. With $25-30 millions [€23-28 million]You’d think it was easy to open a bank account. “You’d be shocked,” he said.

“You don’t make any money when you start out, so you are constantly drawing down and not adding in. They’re like, “You know what? “I just don’t want this hassle”.

SVB was a great help to young entrepreneurs. It gave them a bank account, valuable support, and the ability to hire a team and set up payroll.

SVB helped these founders raise equity, even when their companies did not have a positive cash-flow.

“They were like a central bank that connected entrepreneurs to venture capitalists. This is where you should go. Hunter said that if you are trying to raise funds and you want to attend a conference to meet 100 investors and not five, then this is the place to be.

Funding gap

Irony of the collapse of tech’s favorite bank is that it has been largely fueled by technology itself – from digital banks making money transfers easier to panic spreading in private WhatsApp chat rooms and on social media.

SVB customers withdrawn $42 billion (EUR39billion) in one day last week. This left the bank with a negative cash balance of nearly $1 billion (EUR930m). Regulations.

Many entrepreneurs felt that the bank’s struggles were an existential threat to the business they had worked so hard to create. They were also terrified of not being able pay their staff or invoices.

“I was shocked. My sister’s SVB bank had about $2 million (EUR1.9m) in it. She was very concerned, so I helped her to open another bank over the weekend,” said Ke Cheng. Ke Cheng is the founder and president of HistoWiz a biotech firm that automates and digitalises tissue samples for pharmaceutics and academia.

Cheng, whose company’s deposits were mostly secure outside of SVB and her area, Miami, was affected by the SVB scandal, took to LinkedIn to offer help to start-ups in Miami.

She said that during the COVID-19 pandemic the Paycheck Protection Program of the Trump administration had saved her business, which was profitable. Now, she explained, “it is time to give back to local communities and preserve innovation in American economy”.

Hunter, whose Canary Medical medtech company had around $5 million in cash exposed at SVB (EUR46million), was relieved when US regulators declared that all deposits made at SVB would now be guaranteed. He’s not happy about losing a valued business partner.

“Yes, our capital is available and that’s fantastic. We didn’t only bank with them. He said, “We’re currently working on M&A deals, and they provided those services to us as well.”

“The cash is one thing but the services and other things will be missed if we don’t find a way to keep them running”.

Cheng expressed her hope that the US government would “somehow encourage” these smaller, local banks to continue their support for start-ups. She was concerned about the prospects of early venture capital funding for health tech start ups in this year.

“I think VCs are going to be very careful when writing checks.” She said that because of the crypto fallout and interest rate hikes, people are probably apprehensive about investing in startups.

High reward requires high risks

It’s not clear if any institution will be able to fill the void that SVB left when it comes time to fund start-ups.

Don’t misunderstand me, there are other banks who provide these services. Hunter said, “But this was the 800-pound-gorilla of banks that did that.” “I’m sure that in time, another company will take over this space.” It will take some time. It won’t be in a few months or a couple of years.

A partner of a rival European venture-debt provider told Euronews Next SVB had “done a formidable job” in serving the tech and health care ecosystem, including in Europe, where it has been active for about 15 years.

“It is of course very sad when a player with such a large scale disappears. It leaves a funding hole,” said the partner who asked to remain anonymous because his company collaborated with SVB and also competed against it on the continent.

He was pleased with the British government’s quick intervention to negotiate a deal. HSBC will take over The UK arm of SVB is attempting to protect the tech sector in the country from a cash shortage.

The partner said: “I think that on both sides of Atlantic, there is an understanding that the tech and health ecosystem is fundamental for growth and for the survival of overall economy.”

They needed to do everything they could to ensure that the ecosystem survived and was not affected by one bank’s problems. But it remains a question of how they will continue to provide finance”.

‘Live by sword, die by sword’

In a sense, the collapse of SVB may have put the US tech industry on a par with that in Europe. According to experts, there is no real equivalent in Europe in terms of scale or specialisation.

In the EU, the banks of this size are more diversified and strictly regulated than those in the US. There’s also a tendency to favor domestic banks, such as Deutsche Bank, for German companies.

The European and Canadian systems are better because they distribute capital more evenly and measure risk. Hunter said that the disadvantage is that high rewards require high risk.

“The Americans have always been risk takers and pushed the edge. Silicon Valley was the most obvious place on Earth in the last 30 years, right? So, I guess, it’s a bit of ‘live with the sword, die with the sword’.

“We [in Canada and Europe] Our companies tend to grow slower and not as quickly. “The Americans seem to be more aggressive and incubate more successful businesses,” he said.

On both sides of Atlantic, tech entrepreneurs are feeling nervous.

The collapse of SVB could further frighten investors who have already become “a bit more pessimistic” about technology, start-ups and innovation in recent months. This is according to Antonio Fatas Professor of Economics at INSEAD Business School in France.

“I think that things will be more difficult.” He said that funding would become more conservative.

Author

Continue Reading

Business

MEPs Urge Orban, To Act To Unlock EU Money

Published

on

meps-urge-orban,-to-act-to-unlock-eu-money

MEPs in charge of controlling the spending of EU funds continue to be “greatly concerned” about how Hungary manages EU money. They have called on Prime Minister Viktor Orban to implement reforms that will unblock EU funds that are currently suspended.

Monika Hohlmeier, a German MEP of the centre-right party, told reporters in Budapest on Wednesday (17th May) that “our goal is not to stop money; our goal is to spend the money in Hungary.”

The delegation of the European Parliament’s budget control committee reviewed the progress of the implementation of 27 super milestones – the measures that the EU Commission has set forth for the Hungarian government to unfreeze Cohesion and Covid Recovery Funds.

Hohlmeier stated that Hungary should implement measures “as quickly and as soon as possible”.

Last December, the EU countries approved a plan to grant Hungary EUR5,8bn under the bloc’s Covid-19 Recovery Plan, on the condition that Budapest implement 27 reform targets. These included strengthening judicial independence, and putting new anti-corruption measures in place.

The EU also suspended EUR6.3bn of cohesion fund payments to Hungary due to concerns about rule-of-law, which the EU claimed put the budget of the bloc at risk.

The negotiations between the government of Hungary and the commission are ongoing, but without any breakthrough.

MEPs do not have a direct say in the unlocking of funds. The European Parliament has kept up political pressure on EU officials to ensure that Hungary adheres to EU rules regarding independent judiciary, and fights corruption before receiving EU funds.

“The picture that emerged” […] Lara Wolters, a Dutch left-wing MEP, said that the lack of information regarding financial oversight of government expenditures, as well as issues in control audits of public procurements and conflict of interests, is a major concern for us.

“Real structural change is the only way to bring about real change.” [changes]She added that the media in Hungary was hostile towards the committee.

Media close to the government asked the MEPs at the press conference if EU money was connected to Hungary’s rejection to perceived EU policies regarding migration, gender and Ukraine. They also asked if the MEPs supported the delivery of weapons to Ukraine and what they thought of corruption in Brussels.

Petri Sarvamaa, a centre-right MEP from Finland, said in Budapest: “We don’t invent this stuff.” He added: “Our only purpose is to make sure that the EU budget in any member state is not at risk. This is not about Hungary.

Hohlmeier also added that the committee traveled to Spain Italy and Bulgaria to monitor EU expenditure.

Daniel Freund, German Green MEP, however, said that despite his eighth visit to Hungary he found “unthinkable” things in any other EU country.

“A rule by decretal, a state emergency for eight years, now ongoing, 95 amendments to the budget [in 2022] “Armed inspections of a food pantry by the tax authority without the participation of the national Parliament,” Freund said.

“We want EU funding to go to Hungary to build schools, put solar panels on the roofs, have fast internet everywhere and to provide social assistance to Hungarians who are most vulnerable,” he said.

“But we do not want EU funds to be used to enrich the family members and friends of Mr Orban, by breaking EU rules regarding fight against corruption and prevention of conflict of interest,” Freund added.

Tibor Navracsics said on Wednesday that he believed the European Parliament delegation had not read all the background material sent to them in advance.

According to media reports, he also claimed that political biases had influenced many MEPs’ opinions and that as a result factual errors have been made in some cases.

Author

Continue Reading

Business

Growing Fear EU Firms In Russia May Be Forced To Finance War

Published

on

growing-fear-eu-firms-in-russia-may-be-forced-to-finance-war

The EU is preparing to assist their companies in leaving Russia amid the growing risk that they will be taxed and used to fund the war of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The proposals for the 11th round Russia sanctions, as seen by EUobserver include special new permits and legal services to help European companies get out.

Since the beginning of the war, more than 1,600 Russians and Russian entities have had their assets frozen by EU.

The 11th round adds another 100 names.

The new proposal allows EU countries to authorize financial transfers to Russians on the blacklist “after determining that such funds or resources are necessary to complete transactions, including sales which are strictly required for the winding down, by 31 August 20,23, of a joint-venture or similar legal arrangement established with this person or an entity owned or controlled by this person before 28 February 2020”.

The EU also banned European law firms providing commercial services to Russian customers.

The 11th round proposal is intended to ease this as well, in order to help untangle the related EU-Russian interests within Europe.

The proposal stated that “Competent Authorities of the Member States may Authorise until 31 Dec 2023 the Provision of Legal Services which are Mandatory… for such divestments, such as Notary Services”,

According to a running count kept by Yale University, the US, and last updated on May 16, more than 1,000 foreign companies have already fled Russia in the past year.

There are still dozens of large European companies operating in Russia.

Some of the biggest European banks (Deutsche Bank ING Bank Raiffeisen Bank International UniCredit, OMV and Total) and energy companies (Engie, OMV and Total) are included.

This includes well-known brands such as Armani Benetton Diesel Lacoste and Lacoste.

Also included are the following: Austrian energy drink maker Red Bull; Danish medical equipment manufacturer Coloplast; Dutch consumer goods company Phillips and drinks producer Heineken; Estonian taxi firm Bolt and French hotel chain Accor, Clarins cosmetics maker and German engineering firm Bosch.

Staying in Russia for the past year has been a calculated risk of financial reward versus reputational risk.

Since the war, the share value of Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International fell by 40 percent due to the opprobrium that comes with staying in place.

According to the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, profits from its Russian operations reached a record EUR2.2bn by 2022, which accounted for more than 60% of total profits.

Russia is making it difficult for its old friends in the West to leave.

The Foreign Investment Commission of the Russian Finance Ministry now requires strategic firms, such banks and energy companies to obtain permission from the commission to sell Russian assets.

Novaya Gazeta reported that the government only issues 10 or so permits per month, despite a waiting list of 700 applicants.

In March, Russia made matters even worse by stating that foreign firms would have to pay a 10% tax on assets sold if they decided to leave.

The Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said at the time that “we are creating conditions so… exit is not beneficial for foreign business”.

The new legislation that is coming could make staying even more of a financial and moral risk than before.

Due to favorable double-taxation agreements, most European companies paid little or no tax on their profits in Russia.

But, in March, the Finance Ministry proposed freezing these tax treaties with about 40 “unfriendly countries” that imposed sanctions against Russia, including the EU 27.

Putin has not yet implemented the proposal, but it is a matter that could be decided by a presidential order at any time.

His symbolism could be exposed after the EU imposes the 11th round in the coming weeks.

Putin also publicly asked on 2 May that his government “clarify” how it will handle dividend payments in the future to shareholders from “unfriendly” countries.

According to a Russian source who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the information, new rules could see an up to 25% tax imposed on the Russian profit of EU firms like Armani, Clarins and Raiffeisen, as well as the rest of those who stayed.

Russian trap

Source: Siluanov’s exit fee of 10 percent could lead “Western companies unaware of the future dividend taxes to maintain some presence in Russia”, the source said.

“But once you’ve done that, [double-tax] After the termination of agreements, Moscow will impose new taxes on Western companies that are still present in Russia. They would be required to pay a tax on dividends up to 25%,” the source said.

EUobserver reported that “this would actually turn these companies into sponsors of Russian war efforts”.

The EU Foreign Service never comments on details about upcoming sanctions such as its motivations for suddenly lubricating European divestments.

It also told this site that advice to private companies was a primary matter of national competency.

It added: “This time is not the right time to do business with Russia or in Russia because of its war against Ukraine, and due to the unpredictable nature of the local economy, investment and rule of law environments.”

This was only one of many warnings that Putin was preparing a bribe to foreign investors.

Exiled Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky – whose oil company Yukos was seized 15 years ago by the Kremlin – warned on 2nd May that Putin had “demonstratively constructed an illegitimate, lawless state”.

“The withdrawal of assets was something that should have been started long ago, even before war. And on 24 February 2020 [the date of the Ukraine invasion]Khodorkovsky stated that the decision should have been taken.

Author

Continue Reading

Business

[Exclusive] MEP Luxury Pension Held Corporate Assets In Tax Havens

Published

on

[exclusive]-mep-luxury-pension-held-corporate-assets-in-tax-havens

While the European Parliament was demanding a clamp down on tax havens, many of its own MEPs were using their monthly office allowances to finance a luxury pension scheme that held corporate assets in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere.

The investments, including in large banks requiring bailouts, were made at the height of 2008-2010 financial crisis that had ushered in mass unemployment and austerity cuts affecting ordinary Europeans.

Among those were 16,000 shares of Cayman Islands based Teck Resources Ltd, Canada’s largest diversified mining firm. The shares were held shortly before the European Parliament passed a resolution slamming the role played by tax havens in encouraging and profiteering from tax avoidance.

“When investments take place through jurisdictions such as Cayman Islands and Bermuda, it should definitely make the alarm bells go off,” said Tove Maria Ryding of Tax Justice advocacy group.

Ryding said that although not all investments through these jurisdictions are problematic, they should definitely be a reason for introducing extra precaution and high standards of transparency.

The latest revelation also comes at a time when the European Parliament is trying to regain public trust in the wake of the Qatargate corruption scandal, where one of its now former vice-presidents is awaiting trial wearing a police ankle monitor.

The investments were made on the behalf of a so-called voluntary pension fund, a Luxembourg-based scheme that is currently running a €379m actuarial deficit and which may require a taxpayer bailout as as early as next year. MEPs at the time only had to contribute two years into the fund in order to then receive a pension for life.

The parliament’s secretive leadership, known as the Bureau, is currently scrambling for solutions in the hopes of avoiding another public relations disaster ahead of the 2024 European elections.

The issue has riled critical MEPs who have for years been piling on pressure for the Bureau to come up with answers but to no avail. Among them is Monika Hohlmeier, a German centre-right MEP who chairs the powerful budgetary control committee.

“The Voluntary Pensions Fund has been causing me serious headaches for some time now,” she said, in an email.

“When I now hear that the investment strategy included assets in tax heavens such as the Cayman Islands, then it just adds to the ever-growing list of problems this fund accumulated”, she said.

Coal mine shares aside, the fund also held numerous shares in the Bermudas, as well in other tax havens like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland. The fund eventually bounced back to pre-global financial crisis figures, noted asset managers in a 2011 report.

EUobserver obtained the list of investments spanning 1994 to 2010 from the Luxembourg business register.

But the breakdown of individual investments stops post 2010 with the European Parliament refusing to release any further details.

“The voluntary and complementary pension fund for MEPs was created in 1990, when there was no single statute for MEPs,” said a spokesperson from the European Parliament.

“The fund was closed in 2009, when the new MEPs’ single statute entered into force,” she said, noting the fund is a non-profit association governed by Luxembourgish law.

Although no longer open to MEPs since 2009, the fund is still making investments today on their behalf.

Asked about those investments, she said the European Parliament was unable to comment because the fund is a “third party”.

This comes despite the fund’s board being composed of sitting MEPs, including Janusz Lewandowski and European parliament vice-presidents Othmar Karas and Roberts Zile.

Zile is the parliament’s document gatekeeper. Late last year, he refused a freedom of information request filed by EUobserver to disclose additional information on the voluntary pension fund.

And earlier this month, the European Parliament passed its budget report and called upon the Bureau to clarify the entitlements of current and past MEPs stacking up multiple pensions.

The Greens had tabled an amendment demanding MEPs withdraw from the voluntary pension fund if they already receive another pension.

But that amendment was voted down 272 against 203. Among those rejecting it were Lewandowski, Karas, and Zile. The latter two are beneficiaries of the voluntary pension fund.

Other notable beneficiaries include the EU’s foreign policy chief Joseph Borrell as well as former European climate commissioner Miguel Arias Canete and others.

Author

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2023 EuroTimes