Category: Entrepreneurship

“Climate Change Has Been Good for Us”

(p. A1) SLINDE, Norway—Perched on a steep slope overlooking the country’s largest fiord, tidy rows of vines spread on the frosted ground underneath towering pine trees.

On the 61st parallel—the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska— Bjorn Bergum’s vineyard is set to become the world’s northernmost commercial wine estate, a testimony to how global warming is disrupting century-old landscapes, traditions and oenological preconceptions.

“There is no doubt,” Mr. Bergum says. “Climate change has been good for us.”

. . .

(p. A9) “First we take Scandinavia, then the world,” says Erik Lindås, head of Norway’s nascent winegrowers association. “It’s motivating to work when people think you can’t make it. People laughed at English wine 15 years ago but they are not laughing anymore.”

Denmark and Sweden are commercially producing wines that have won international awards, while Britain and Belgium are experiencing a viticultural renaissance. Vintners in Germany, which has a proud winemaking tradition in the south, are exploring new terroirs farther north.

. . .

The northerners have a replique to southern arguments about boreal vineyards’ lack of tradition: During the so-called Medieval Climate Optimum, a warm spell from the ninth century to the 13th, winemaking thrived as far up as northern England and the Baltics.

Professor Hans R. Schultz, who studies climate change’s effects on viticulture at Germany’s Geisenheim University, says global warming is pulling the winemaking economy northward. In Germany’s terroirs, which used to lose entire harvests to cold spells, every vintage since 1987 was better than the previous, he says.

For the full story, see:

Bojan Pancevski. “New Wines Invade From Viking Terroir.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, October 30, 2019): A1 & A9.

(Note: ellipses added; italics in original.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 29, 2019, and has the title “Chateau Viking: Climate Change Makes Northern Wine a Reality.”)

Theil Venture Capital Firm Will Invest More in Later Stage Startups

(p. B1) Peter Thiel’s venture-capital firm is raising nearly $3 billion—and in a switch from the company’s usual script, much of the war chest will be poured into the swelling ranks of technology startups that have stayed private for years.

. . .

The venture firm, co-founded by Mr. Thiel, typically backs early-stage companies. But with its biggest winners, like Airbnb Inc., staying private longer than startups of an earlier generation, Founders needs to be able to make larger investments at later stages of a company’s lifetime to maintain comparable stakes and a say in company operations, some of the people said.

. . .

Founders Fund has told potential investors that older companies that stay private longer can prove to be more stable, if less lucrative, investments than moonshot startup bets, according to the people familiar with the matter.

. . .

Founders has produced investment returns well-above the industry average, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year. Its earliest funds, from 2005 and 2007, grew sixfold and more than eightfold, respectively, by the third quarter of last year.

For the full story, see:

Rob Copeland and Katie Roof. “Thiel Fund Builds War Chest in Strategy Shift.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, October 22, 2019): B1.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 21, 2019, and has the title “Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund Builds New War Chest in Strategy Shift.” In the third passage quoted above, the quote follows the print version instead of the slightly different online version.)

Stories of Heroic Entrepreneurs

The great idealists of our economy are not the socialists, but the heroic entrepreneurs of innovative dynamism. One of the goals of my book Openness to Creative Destruction, and some of my other writings, is to tell their stories to a wider audience. Gonzalo Schwarz has let me know that his Archbridge Institute is also telling some of these stories under the heading American Originals at:

https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/american-originals/

Improved Stoves, Pushed by Social Entrepreneurs, Do Not Improve Health or Environment

(p. 80) Laboratory studies suggest that improved cooking stoves can reduce indoor air pollution, improve health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. We provide evidence, from a large-scale randomized trial in India, on the benefits of a common, laboratory-validated stove with a four-year follow-up. While smoke inhalation initially falls, this effect disappears by year two. We find no changes across health outcomes or greenhouse gas emissions. Households used the stoves irregularly and inappropriately, failed to maintain them, and usage declined over time. This study underscores the need to test environmental technologies in real-world settings where behavior may undermine potential impacts.

Source:

Hanna, Rema, Esther Duflo, and Michael Greenstone. “Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 8, no. 1 (Feb. 2016): 80-114.

“These Guys Are Selling Things to Better Their Lives”

(p. A20) The colorful bottles have popped up every summer in black and Hispanic communities — from the bodegas of Washington Heights to the stoops of Fort Greene — since the early 1990s. On beach boardwalks, at neighborhood basketball courts and block parties, New Yorkers are drinking nutcrackers, boozy homespun cocktails made from a blend of alcohol and fruit juices.

But this year, the New York Police Department is cracking down on the illegal drinks and the vendors who sell them, vendors and customers said.

. . .

But sellers and customers who believe there is a crackdown are alarmed, saying vital financial lifelines are threatened and raising the issue of which infractions police choose to focus on and which communities are scrutinized.

“It’s just another way to target us,” Dee said. “If I don’t sell nutcrackers, I can’t make my rent. I don’t have a choice.”

Most every Thursday in the summer, Dee clocks out from her job as an exterminator with the city and begins work on her illegal private enterprise.

After spending $600 or so at the liquor store nearby, she will lug her ingredients — cases of vodkas, rums, tequilas and cognacs — to her two-bedroom public housing apartment and into a dim, cramped back room where she will get to work making batches of her best sellers like Tropical Punch, Henny Colada and the Fort Greene Lean.

Dee’s concoctions will be poured into dozens, sometimes hundreds, of stubby plastic bottles and peddled all weekend to her longtime customers: old-timers playing dominoes in Bedford-Stuyvesant, basketball tournament crowds at Gersh Park in East New York, neighbors and friends in her old Flatbush neighborhood. They will all be waiting for her, she said.

On a good weekend, Dee will earn around $1,400 from nutcracker sales, enough to cover her rent, which has risen nearly $700 since 2015, she said.

. . .

“They always trying to beat us down,” said Jay, another nutcracker seller who preferred that his last name be withheld. Jay said he decided to venture into the business this summer as a way to get his music management business off the ground.

“This is going to buy studio time for my artist,” he said, nodding to the cooler he wheeled down the Coney Island boardwalk at sunset. “Ice-cold water,” he said loudly to passers-by, followed by a softer, more subtle “(Nutcrackers.)”

“Ice cold water!”

“(Nutcrackers).”

“These guys are selling things to better their lives,” said Sandra Anguiz, 30, after buying a cream-soda-flavored nutcracker from Jay. “Why are police worried about that?”

For the full story, see:

Aaron Randle. “Cracking Down on the Sweet, Boozy Staple of a City Summer.” The New York Times (Saturday, August 17, 2019): A20.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the same date as the print version, and has the title “Banned on the Beach? It’s Still Nutcracker Summer.” In the passages quoted above, the sometimes slightly longer online version is followed.)

Tesla’s Process Innovation May Be Low-Defect, Fast-Assembly

(p. A13) Tesla became a darling of government handouts, with tax credits and public funding galore. It quickly grew into a sales phenom with high prices but low volume. Then, this year, its production numbers started to match those of the other major manufacturers. How Mr. Musk achieved this—and whether he should be considered a visionary or a charlatan—is the subject of “Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors,” by the automotive journalist Edward Niedermeyer.

. . .

The book hits its stride when the author details Mr. Musk’s attempts to revolutionize the way cars are built. DeLorean and others faltered due to their inability to roll out large numbers of vehicles at a decent level of quality. Likewise the assembly line has been Tesla’s biggest obstacle. For a generation, automakers have cleaved to Toyota’s system of production, which emphasizes reducing waste and defects, slowing down the assembly line to achieve these goals. Mr. Musk, in contrast, feels Teslas should be assembled with a fast-moving line, deploying robots where other carmakers have employed workers.

Many observers bet that fast assembly won’t work. But this year Tesla delivered an impressive 158,000 cars to customers in the first two quarters, about the same number of Lexus models sold in the U.S. during that same period. Low-defect assembly was the major innovation of the automotive industry a generation ago; fast-line assembly may be the next. If Tesla’s fast-produced vehicles turn out to be reliable, Mr. Musk will deserve plaudits.

. . .

The portrait of Elon Musk that emerges from this book is one of a social-media obsessive who is constantly overpromising, playing the role of the self-sufficient business person while relying on government favors. Still, Tesla facilities produce lots of actual cars, which is more than what most other one-man marques have achieved. The accomplishment may not be as grand as Mr. Musk would like us to believe: He couldn’t have built his cars without subsidies from taxpayers who cannot afford Teslas and were given no choice in funding playthings for the rich. But his is an achievement, nonetheless.

For the full review, see:

Gregg Easterbrook. “BOOKSHELF; A Revolutionary Old Product.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2019): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Aug. 27, 2019, and has the title ” BOOKSHELF; ‘Ludicrous’ Review: A Revolutionary Old Product.”)

The book under review is:

Niedermeyer, Edward. Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc., 2019.

Regenerative Farming Practices “Could Soak Up Half to 100% of All the Carbon Dioxide Emitted”

(p. A2) AINSWORTH, Iowa—What if there was a way to combat climate change that didn’t require technological breakthroughs, carbon taxes or eliminating all fossil fuels?

Such a solution might lie here in an Iowa cornfield beneath the feet of Mitchell Hora, a seventh-generation farmer. Mr. Hora experiments with “regenerative growing practices” that improve soil health, boost yields, reduce water and fertilizer use, and carry a significant collateral benefit: they sequester in the soil carbon released from burning fossil fuels.

Mr. Hora could soon be rewarded for providing this social benefit. Indigo Ag Inc., a Boston-based company specializing in agricultural technology and management, is setting up a market for carbon credits. Companies and consumers with voluntary or compulsory commitments to reduce their carbon footprint can, rather than reduce emissions themselves, pay farmers to do it for them. Via the Indigo Carbon marketplace, they can pay farmers like Mr. Hora $15 to sequester one metric ton of carbon dioxide in the soil.

. . .

David Perry, Indigo’s chief executive, is almost messianic about the potential: “We could soak up half to 100% of all the carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution,” or roughly one trillion tons.

The Rodale Institute, a think tank that promotes organic agriculture and has partnered with Indigo, cites trials that suggest through regenerative growing practices, an acre of agricultural land can sequester one to 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Extrapolating to the world, that equals the about 37 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide released globally through fossil fuel use each year.

For the full commentary, see:

Greg Ip. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Carbon Emissions Get a Fix on the Farm.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Sept. 12, 2019): A2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 11, 2019, and has the title “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; How to Get Rid of Carbon Emissions: Pay Farmers to Bury Them.”)

Netflix Flourished by “Unplanned” Leaps

(p. A17) Starting a business is tough enough. Why would any sane person choose to start a business in a dying industry?

One answer to that question can be found in “That Will Never Work: The Birth of Netflix and the Amazing Life of an Idea,” a charming first-person account of the early days of one of the most successful tech startups ever.

. . .

Most of Netflix’s early business came from sales of DVDs, not rentals. The struggling company even considered selling to Amazon in 1998, but passed on the offer.

In desperation, Netflix tested monthly subscriptions. To its surprise, customers eagerly forked over their credit-card details. The little company turned on a dime, dropping sales and one-off rentals almost immediately. “If you had asked me on launch day to describe what Netflix would eventually look like, I never would have come up with a monthly subscription service,” Mr. Randolph claims. Netflix’s innovation with a subscription model would point many other internet-based companies to a reliable source of revenue.

Another unplanned leap soon followed: a predictive algorithm that offered to each user individualized recommendations based on reviews by customers with similar preferences. This feature helped hook customers, but it had a less obvious benefit for Netflix: By directing the user to a less popular film that happened to be in Netflix’s inventory, it allowed the company to buy fewer of the most popular DVDs. Yet profits were elusive. Video-store giant Blockbuster, unconvinced about the online business model, turned down a chance to buy the company in 2000, and the dot-com meltdown short-circuited a public offering. In September 2001, Netflix had its first layoffs, cutting costs and steadying the ship.

Mr. Randolph himself left in 2003, not long after Netflix finally went public. By then, he says, he had figured out that he loved starting companies, not running them. “I missed the late nights and early mornings, the lawn chairs and card tables. I missed the feeling of all hands on deck, and the expectation that every day you’d be working on a problem that wasn’t strictly tied to your job description,” he writes. The chaos of a startup enthralls him. A company with hundreds of employees and the demands of quarterly reports to investors is not his thing.

For the full review, see:

Marc Levinson. “BOOKSHELF; Streaming Ahead.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Sept. 23, 2019): A17.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Sept. 22, 2019, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; ‘That Will Never Work’ Review: Streaming Ahead.”)

The book under review is:

Randolph, Marc. That Will Never Work: The Birth of Netflix and the Amazing Life of an Idea. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2019.

Humana Founding Entrepreneur Said Notion That Non-Profit Hospitals Are Better Than For-Profit Hospitals, Is “Baloney”

(p. 26) Mr. Jones was a genial but extremely competitive executive. During the years that Humana owned hospitals, several in Louisville, he vigorously defended the for-profit hospital model, contending that Humana’s facilities could deliver better care at lower costs.

“The notion that being nonprofit adds some weight to what you do is baloney,” he once said.

For the full obituary, see:

Richard Sandomir. “David Jones, Health Care Entrepreneur Behind Humana, Is Dead at 88.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, September 22, 2019): 26.

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the same date and title as the print version.)

Entrepreneur Helped Firms Lower Costs of Firing Executives

(p. A6) James Challenger had tried law, advertising and manufacturing of gas heaters before dreaming up in the mid-1960s what he called a wild idea: persuading companies to pay him to help find new jobs for executives and middle managers they were laying off.

His firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, offered what came to be known as outplacement services. The initial reaction from companies, he said later, was why should we help people we’re firing?

The aptly named Mr. Challenger, who died Aug. 30 [2019] at age 93, struggled for years to persuade companies it was good business to be nice to people heading involuntarily out the door.

For the full obituary, see:

Hagerty, James R. “Wild Idea Created Outplacement Services.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019): A6.

(Note: bracketed year added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date Sept. 20, 2019, and has the title “James Challenger Helped Create Market for Outplacement Services.”)

Regulators Threaten App Startups That “Give People Access to Their Pay as They Earn It”

(p. B5) WASHINGTON—A growing industry of financial apps that allow workers to access their pay early is drawing scrutiny from regulators to prove they are different from payday lenders.

. . .

Last month, regulators from New York and 10 other states said they were investigating whether some payroll-advance firms violated payday-lending laws. In California, state lawmakers are debating a law that aims to set the legal foundation for the industry and provide consumer protections, the first such attempt in the country.

The moves by state officials come as the industry is growing. Leslie Parrish, an analyst for research firm Aite Group, said the industry is “poised for exponential growth.” Aite Group estimated the app companies handled 18.6 million early U.S. payroll transactions valued at more than $3.15 billion in 2018.

. . .

Industry executives and some consumer advocates say the services offer the potential to help lower- and moderate-income workers by providing low-cost tools, though they disagree on how businesses should be structured and regulated.

“It hasn’t solved the income inequality problem,” Todd Baker, a senior fellow at Columbia Business School, said. “What it does is replace, for a nominal cost, the $30, $40 people pay today for a single overdraft or a $200 payday loan.”

. . .

“In the U.S., we have this pay cycle that holds back people’s pay,” said Ram Palaniappan, chief executive of Earnin. “What we have been able to do is to give people access to their pay as they earn it.”

Earnin tracks users’ work and pay schedules using time sheets or location services and will deposit up to $500 per pay period in their bank accounts. Rather than charging fees for its service, Earnin asks users to consider voluntary tips of up to $14.

For the full story, see:

Yuka Hayashi. “Pay-App Startups Draw Scrutiny.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2019): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 2, 2019, and has the title “Pay-Access Apps Face Regulatory Test.”)