We often hear and know intuitively that our future depends on the energy of entrepreneurs and the investors that back them coming up with brilliant ideas that solve our problems - both big and small. Yet amazingly, information and insights about these innovative startups remains notoriously difficult to find or is only accessible to a limited few who can spend thousands of dollars subscribing to such services. With your help, ChubbyBrain hopes to change this.
We're proud to announce ChubbyBrain (www.chubbybrain.com) recently launched it's public beta. ChubbyBrain is the world’s largest user-generated database of innovative startups. In addition to delivering intelligent, well-structured information on startups and the investors that back them, ChubbyBrain also encourages its members to provide expert insights and critiques of emerging business models, technologies and companies. ChubbyBrain currently contains insights from professionals at Battery Ventures, Virgo Capital, and the NYC Dept of Environmental Protection to name just a few.
Presently, the ChubbyBrain platform has over 13,000 startups and over 900 investors (VCs, angel investment groups, corporate venture groups and individuals) in its user-editable database. Startups cover a wide range of areas including clean/green tech to biotech to nanotech to web to mobile to social entrepreneurship (and everything in between).
Learn more about ChubbyBrain by clicking here or visiting the ChubbyBrain blog by clicking here. You can also follow ChubbyBrain at the following places:
The popular blog on all things technology, TechCrunch, recently had a post on something you don't typically see on the blog - organic growth. The entry entitled "Does Google Have an Organic Growth Problem" - discusses an analysis by Citi equity research analyst who argues that Google's organic growth is decelerating.
It was an interesting post and something we were glad to see given our work on organic growth. Below are our thoughts on the post and the findings about Google. We've benchmarked and analyzed the entire S&P 500 (of which Google is a member) on organic revenue generation and efficiency over the period from 2003-2007, and our #s reveal a similar story, but the picture still is very positive.
We would agree with Citi's analysis that the organic revenue as a % of total revenue for Google as well as a % of total revenue growth is declining over the longer period we studied. As compared to Yahoo (the closest comparable to Google if there is one), we have seen that Google is destroying their peer from an organic revenue perspective.Our analysis goes beyond just organic revenue and looks at the efficiency of generating this organic growth, e.g., how much are companies like Google, Yahoo, etc spending to achieve organic revenue growth. We call this efficiency ratio the Organic Growth Multiplier (OGM). The logic behind the OGM is that if one company can spend $1 to get $3 of revenue and another can spend $1 to get $5 of revenue, the latter company is healthier and has more momentum in its business.
When we look at the OGM of Google versus Yahoo and versus the larger S&P500 tech financials category, the picture is actually quite pretty for Google. They're tops as it relates to OGM which means a dollar of investment into their core business generates more revenue than the average tech sector company. They also outshine Yahoo on this count as well.
The indexed OGM for Yahoo and Google over the period from 2003-2007 are 50.9 and 312.84, respectively. Without getting into the quantitative models that underlie this, the point is that Google's organic revenue efficiency is far superior to Yahoo.
Most importantly from all this work is that we've seen that higher OGM and total shareholder return are positively correlated. So having the ability to generate organic growth efficiently is a good indicator of shareholder returns.
While the assertion that their organic revenue is declining does remain true, the news is not as dire as I've been reading elsewhere from those who've picked up on this TechCrunch entry. Yes, if they can turn one of their acquisitions into a money maker, this will obviously supplement some of the organic revenue deceleration that might be evident in their historical core business, but on the whole Google is still a star when it comes to organic revenue generation and efficiency. The fact that Citi retains its buy rating despite the organic picture is testament to this.
A bit on the methodology. There are some notable differences from the Citi analysis which despite the similar conclusions do make our analysis more robust.
We've looked at a more extensive time period (2003-2007)
We strip out market growth for each company. In essence, if the market is growing at 10% and your company grows at 10%, we don't give you credit for this. This is rising tide growth and is not due to management's actions and investments in the core business. Organic revenue, therefore, in our models is only the growth we can attribute to management's prowess (or lack thereof).
In our Organic Growth Multiplier, we also look at the efficiency of generating organic revenue by determining how much is spent by each company to achieve its organic revenue. This gives a truer sense for the efficiency of the company's organic revenue capabilities.
.gif)
