[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: Re: UKNM: Wimps?
From: Nick Sweeney
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:46:42 GMT

> In the UK, the City has been notoriously conservative about this kind
> of investment. Why do you think the British film industry was up shit
> creek for years? We had world beating facilities and craftspeople, but
> a cautious City who were afraid of getting their fingers burnt. It
> ultimately took the likes of Miramax (Disney) & Fox Searchlight to
> fund successful films like The Full Monty - not forgetting the
> sterling work that Channel Four has done.

"This kind" being the operative world, since recent experience has shown
that the City is quite capable of backing its own vapour trails. It's
interesting that VC investment remains fairly sound in the US, in spite of
general market fears, given that the microeconomics of the net/tech
industry are out on a limb (stand out; sell out; payout).

> Can you think of any companies of this magnitude in the UK who have
> benefited from VC? Because I can't.

Not from inside the UK. And not in the proper sense of "start-up". Just as
the Seattle Coffee Company was more or less set up because Starbucks
hadn't reached the UK, and built up to sell out, so Bookpages was waiting
for Amazon to come along with the money, after a couple of years of being
given the finger by banks. Nice one.

Point is, that there's enough money floating around in this business, but
it's in the wrong pockets, and appears at the wrong time for companies,
when the repayment of loans is more important than investment in projects.
It's a vicious circle.


  Re: UKNM: Wimps?, Jamie Unwin

  Re: UKNM: Wimps?, Sajid Mohammed

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]