While not all Americans love Europe, many, mostly from the Blue States, do. People in San Francisco or New York City dream of spending part of their life in Italy, France, UK or Spain, and some do make it over.  Not many go to the extreme of moving over here and giving up their US nationalities as I did. But after 9 years of being a tech entrepreneur in Europe and being forced to choose between Spanish or US citizenship, I chose Spanish and stayed in Madrid. As a tech entrepreneur, I found Europe, in general, and Spain, in particular, to be a fertile ground for me. The European market is huge, bigger actually than the US market. And over here, I built Viatel in the UK, Jazztel and Ya.com in Spain, Einsteinet in Germany (the only company that I sold at a big loss) and now Fon.

Europe is great for an American tech entrepreneur because wealth here is better distributed, people are more educated and there are less competitors. Since being an entrepreneur is not very well regarded over here, US entrepreneurs find more open niches; but on the negative side, the market in Europe is much less homogeneous than in USA, local cultures make it hard to launch pan European products and there are all sorts of taxes, market distorsions and restrictions that surprise a US entrepreneur.

So let´s go over the caveats. The first one that I would like to focus on, one that is particularly brutal, is the issue of unlimited personal liability of the entrepreneur.  On the rest of the article I will refer to laws in Spain, but I do believe that what I am about to tell you about Spain applies to most of the rest of Continental Europe as well.

USA has a lenient view of failure. Failure in America is not seen as a lifelong chronic disease but as a test of character. VCs in the States look for people who have had a combination of successes and failures, as they are more prepared to deal with the tough realities of business life. In Europe, however, failure is seen as just that, failure, a stigma that stays with you for the rest of your life. So far, I have never managed a business that had to liquidate. In all cases, even during the crash of 2002, I was able to refinance, renegotiate and keep companies going. Even at Einsteinet we were able to preserve most of the jobs. We sold the company at a loss, but the loss was limited to the capital invested by myself and my partners mostly at Goldman Sachs.  Recently, thanks to the crisis, I have been hearing horror stories of what happens to entrepreneurs who fail in this Continent vis a vis personal liability. It is not nice.

The basic problem for start up entrepreneurs in Spain (and probably most Continental European countries) is that there is no such thing as “bankruptcy”, in the legal sense of the word.  This is a huge problem for start ups because, as we know, most of them fail.  So, for example, if you start a company in Europe, try hard for five years to make it, but run out of money in the end, the company is not perceived as a bankrupt company in the American sense of the word.  In Europe going bankrupt is the same as firing all the employees and you as the founder, PERSONALLY owe the money that has to be paid to the employees for letting them go, even if the business has done nothing wrong.  I know, it sounds crazy, but this is the case.  So Spain, for example, had a construction boom for the last 5 years that ended in a bust, and now entrepreneurs are having to close down businesses. But when they do, they have to sell their home or do whatever to pay the severance pay of the employees.  Because in this case not only the employees can sue you (through the Seguridad Social) and force you to sell your home, car, and deprive your own family of whatever they need, but if you don’t have money to pay now, they can hunt you down for the rest of your life. You never recover, you can never declare bankruptcy. You can never start anew. If you start a new business and begin to do well, whatever you make then goes to pay for your past losses in your past business. Spanish law ties your future endeavors to your past endeavors. You never get a clean slate. If you had say 1000 employees, which is what I have had in my other companies, you could owe tens of millions of euros for the rest of your life to them. Even though you did not do anything wrong other than failing to generate a profit, you are held personally liable for poor market conditions. This is an enormous risk for a start up entrepreneur. A risk that grows larger, the longer you are in business, as severance liabilities are not related in any way to employee performance and only related to their duration with the company.

And even if you are lucky enough not to go bankrupt in Europe there are other conditions that dissuade an entrepreneur from starting a business.  One of the reasons of the higher unemploymentin Europe than in America is the extremely high social charges. These are 50% higher than in the States. In Spain, a starting level employee who takes home 1000 euros after taxes costs the entrepreneur almost twice as much. In Europe the government takes so much money in between the entrepreneur and the employee that, while take home pay is many times absurdly low, employee cost is generally high. And not only are social charges very high, but salaries are deceiving because, by law, in Spain and in general in Europe you are forced to pay employees 13 or sometimes 14 months for 11 months of work (a year minus a month of mandatory vacation plus an extra month or sometimes two of a mandatory state bonus regardless of performance).  So if you are an American entrepreneur and you come to Europe and find out that there are no stock options and bonuses and want to pay them as I have done, you should realize that, even though it appears that there isn´t additional compensation, in reality there are hidden forms of compensation such as extra months and accumulated liabilities through mandatory severance and these are secured by none other than your own children´s college funds, your home and your car. And this is not all.

In Europe for example, medical doctors play a hard to explain role in business. If, in America, the ghosts for entrepreneurs are injury lawyers, in Spain, France and Italy they are medical doctors. How? If a person does not feel like working, they go to a friendly doctor who declares them “depressed” and they can stop working and still get full paid for up to 18 months. At Sybilla, a company that I invested in, we now have many of such employees, all declared depressed by their friendly doctor, and company productivity is seriously suffering. Interestingly the same law does not apply to entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur you are not allowed to be depressed. This is illegal. If you are nobody pays you. And even when your business fails, you, the entrepreneur (or admistrador in Spain), are not allowed to collect unemployment insurance even if you contributed to the Seguridad Social. In Spain and some other countries entrepreneurs are presumed guilty by default and, in case of failure, everything is seen as their fault even if they truly had a case of mental illness. Mental illness or depression cannot get an entrepreneur away from his obligations to pay, but very commonly gets employees away from their obligation to work.

So while some European countries do have great advantages to start businesses among them, no capital gains tax on businesses owned and sold in over 5 years, starting a business in Europe is riddled with danger.  Having built businesses in the States as well, I know that USA has its negative aspects.  One would be the “legal tax” of doing business.  Legal expenditures for the average business in Europe are in my experience 70% less than in USA.  Moreover in Europe you don´t need to worry about frivolous lawsuits nor insure yourself against them.  But in Europe we have all sorts of entrepreneur obstacles such as net worth taxes, which are as high as 2% of your global net worth per year, we have a medical system in cahoots with employees, we have social charges that are twice as high, and lifetime liability for business failure.

So what do European entrepreneurs do?  Many times they find loopholes but these loopholes even though they are sometimes legal, because we live in the black and white world of Napoleonic laws, they are pathetic to say the least. For example in some case entrepreneurs in Spain are not the legal administrators of their business but find instead people with no net worth to take the job so if things go wrong they are off the hook. And I heard worse things.  In some instances, entrepreneurs in the construction industry ask all new employees to sign blank pieces of paper when they join so the entrepreneurs can force them to resign without severance should they need to do so.  I know that it sounds insane to an American used to courts that interpret the intent of the law that a simple trick like that would work, but in Spain it works. Another common trick that is illegal but almost normal is that when employees want to resign for their own reasons they ask the entrepreneur to fire them so they can collect unemployment insurance.  Another one is that employees who are collecting unemployment insurance offer to work for cash pay but not on the books so there´s no proof that they are working and collecting unemployment and entrepreneurs go along because they save social charges.   And this is but a small list of tricks, illegal maneuvers and loopholes that the system of rigid laws, high social charges, and forced severance has created.  So when you see unemployment statistics in Europe they tend to be inflated in the sense that there are a lot of people in Europe who are both working and collecting unemployment insurance.  The problem is that the employment statistics are also inflated in the sense that there are a lot of fake sick people in Europe who are supposedly employed but who are not working.

Now here is an extreme example. The ultimate American start up, the Hewlett Packard, the company that started in a garage would be illegal in Europe.  In Europe everything is regulated.  People cannot legally work in a garage.  In Germany for example there is legislation that defines what a workplace is.  I know that it´s hard to believe but there are even laws that do not allow employees to work further than a few meters away from a window so unless this famous garage has a lot of windows already working in a garage can get your business close.  Moreover there is almost a concept of bondage involved in the employee company relationship with a set of rights that creep in and build over time that go against the basic principle of the start up namely of trying new business concepts that may fail. Even eager start up employees who understand that a start up has risks and want to be part of the adventure are not allowed to waive any of these rights.  If an employee wanted to sign a piece of paper that said “I declare that I know this is a start up and we don´t have money in this new company to get an office and I accept to work in this garage and I renounce my rights to a window” a government inspector could come and close the whole company anyway.   In general I would say that in Europe the concept of trying things out just does not exist, if you try you are liable, if you try you have to behave as an established business.  There´s no concept of an incubating business in temporary start up conditions. The moment you are in business you have to abide by the rules of business and this rules are against start ups.

Bottom line, if you are a US entrepreneur or a US company thinking of opening up a branch in Europe you have to learn that while the market here is huge that Europe is a whole new world when it gets to the rules of the game of starting a business.  Think less of stock options which in any case are frequently illegal or taxable when they are given out even when they are out of the money, less of bonuses because bonuses are already part of employee compensation and instead interview very very well before you hire because firing is tough and lack of productivity is not reason. In Europe it is not illegal to ask personal questions in an interview, indeed interviewing is much easier in Europe than in America, what is harder is to lay people off.  Even if you have a sales person who has been unable to close a single contract it is illegal in Europe to argue that you are laying off this person because he or she produced no sales.  In Europe, a sales people are not supposed to sell, they are supposed to show up for work and if they fail to maek sales the fault always, invariably lies with the entrepreneur. When the entrepreneur fires this person it is always a wrongful dismissal that must be compensated for.

Now, to end on a positive note, I can say that in my 13 years of building businesses and managing people in Europe my personal experience has been good.  While in one of my portfolio companies there is a high number of people who declared themselves depressed this has only happened with one of the managers who ever reported directly to me. Also, because I never had to close a business, I was not caught personally owing a lot of money to former employees. Employee morale at Fon for example is great and I have not seen any cases of people abusing the system. Moreover, in Spain, and in Europe in genera, there are fortunately very many highly ethical people who don´t abuse the system even if they could. As a result there are many successful entrepreneurs and successful businesses in Europe. But, overall I would say that European society is not business friendly and especially not start up entrepreneur friendly. If you come over, create jobs and do succeed don´t expect the recognition that you get in the States.  In Europe, as an entrepreneur, you are much less likely to be seen as an engine of economic growth and more as a person who gained unfair advantage over average folk who are struggling to make ends meet. And, if you are American, even more so. So American entrepreneurs coming to Europe, beware!

I predict that there will be a new trend soon. It is what I would call management funds. My idea is that as as a result of the crisis, banks, hedge funds, governments end up owning and having to manage businesses and have no clue of how to do it, very able managers will be in short supply. Managers will then say. “Ok, I will manage your business, but don´t pay me a salary. Now it´s my chance to get 20% of the upside”.

Om Malik and Michael Arrington
Image by Mathieu Ramage via Flickr

On an average day this week around 6000 people visited my Spanish blog and 1200 people visited my English blog. But on those same days I sent around 11,000 RSS feeds in Spanish and 5300 in English. If you are a blogger like me who is only out there to disseminate ideas, you don´t advertise, then you don´t really care about how people read your content, and RSS is a plus. But if like Om Malik or Michael Arrington you have to make a living out of blogging RSS can be pretty bad for you. Yes there are feeds with advertising but they are probably even less efficient than advertising itself. I once debated Michael Porter at Davos on the overall value creation of the internet. I argued that the internet created valued and he argued that the internet destroyed value. Examples like RSS vs blogging show that the issue is still not solved. So far the internet is clearly taking value away from old media industries such as newspapers, the recording industry, the movie industry, and it is not clear that similar value is being created. I wonder if there is a recent study of the overall value creation/destruction of the internet in the last 5 years that could settle this issue.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

I never understood why it is acceptable for American media to call political appointees “czars” as if it was a great example to others to be a czar.

Here´s a mention to Podesta being a possible energy czar.

Another observer said John Podesta, Clinton’s White House chief of staff and now co-chair of Obama’s transition team, may also be in consideration for energy secretary or climate “czar,” a White House position being created by Obama to spearhead climate change policy.

Or a drug czar

On paper, Jim Ramstad — who is rumored to be Obama’s choice for drug czar — looks like the ideal man for the job.

A czar, or tsar, is basically a Russian emperor who hardly ruled in a manner that would be compatible with anything that we would call democratic in the States today. One of the most famous czars is Ivan the Terrible. Here´s an excerpt of his biography:

Other events of this period include the introduction of the first laws restricting the mobility of the peasants, which would eventually lead to serfdom, and change in Ivan’s personality, traditionally linked to his near-fatal illness in 1553 and the death of his first wife, Anastasia Romanovna in 1560. Ivan suspected boyars of poisoning his wife and of plotting to replace him on the throne with his cousin, Vladimir of Staritsa. In addition, during that illness Ivan had asked the boyars to swear an oath of allegiance to his eldest son, an infant at the time. Many boyars refused, deeming the tsar’s health too hopeless to survive. This angered Ivan and added to his distrust of the boyars. There followed brutal reprisals and assassinations, including those of Metropolitan Philip and Prince Alexander Gorbatyi-Shuisky.

So if czar is in fashion how about some other possibilities. The Energy Fuhrer. The Drug Tyrant. The Tech Despot. The Intelligence Dictator. Or maybe, these last days as we witness the collapse of the car industry we could name an Auto Autocrat to lead the way to recovery.

I have been criticized many times in this blog for having had done well in life. Especially in my Spanish blog. Many readers know however that I grew up in a middle class family environment –the son of professors– and that I made my money by founding different companies. They also know that I started my companies by writing a business plan, searching for investors, recruiting a good management team, and executing out a strategy. So there are not many secrets about how I made my money in technology. Criticizing me for being rich in my blog. If it is done with humor, I leave it. If it is a direct insult, I don’t publish it. But the attitude of some readers towards my makes me wonder if people who hate successful people realize that what a society needs successful businesses in order not to eliminate poverty.

What do we want, a society without rich people or a society without poor people? To me the answer is clear. What we want is a society without poor people or, like my Argentinean friend Maximiliano Fernandez says, what a country has to aspire to is to have the “richest poor” people in the world. Why? Because if the poor people of, let’s say, Switzerland are the richest in the world –which they may very well be– then the rest of the Swiss will be even better off and all is well. And Switzerland is a good example because it has the richest poor people in the world, but it also has some of the richest people in the world. The same goes for Sweden, another country where the poor live well, but where there are also people, like the founder of IKEA, with huge fortunes almost unrivaled in the world.

Still unconvinced readers will ask me, “What’s going on in countries like Nigeria, in which almost everyone lives in misery, but some are billionaires?”. My answer is that my argument in defense of the rich is not valid in countries that live off of the exploitation of natural resources. In those cases, where it is common for a few to take control of everything, then the argument of some of my readers, that many are poor because a few are rich, is valid. So in those societies what is needed is strict policies of wealth distribution. But in information societies like the EU, USA and Japan of today, which live mainly off of the accumulation of knowledge, the formula that says that in order for there to be fewer poor people there have to be many business leaders competing for human resources and raising wages, is applicable. And those business leaders and entrepreneurs are generally rich.

Take the United States for example, the country with by far the most billionaires in the world. Interestingly enough, its Gini index (which measures a country’s inequality of wealth distribution) is not so much better than Nigeria’s. And yet the USA’s Human Development Index (HDI) is the 12th highest in the world, while Nigeria ranks near the bottom of the barrel at 158th. Perhaps Nigeria’s Gini coefficient is not much worse than the USA’s because so many people are poor, and its rich citizens are actually few and far in between. In contrast, the USA has hundreds of billionaires and thousands of millionaires in addition to a very large middle class. Hence, there is still inequality, but poor – better yet, non-rich – Americans are much better off than non-rich Nigerians.

What’s more, I don’t know of a single successful society, meaning a country whose poor are among the richest on the planet, that doesn’t also have very rich people. As for rich Americans, well let’s look at Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders of Google. Their combined net worth is over $22 billion, but think about how many jobs Google has created, and how much wealth it has brought, not only to its thousands upon thousands of employees, but to the computer industry in general, both in the USA and around the world. In contrast, Aliko Dangote, Nigeria’s richest citizen with a net worth of $3.3 billion, amassed his fortune by gaining a near monopoly on Nigeria’s commodities trade. Again: by taking control of natural resources. Dangote Group is not exactly a boon to Nigeria’s economy.

My conclusion is that when a country really mistreats its entrepreneurs it becomes impoverished. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have to implement progressive taxes –which I think are very good– or create an environment in which people that fall into adverse situations receive the help that they deserve to come out on top, and in which inequalities are reduced. But the solution is not to have fewer rich people, but to have fewer poor people.

Mendota Hills Wind Farm
Image by thomas.merton via Flickr

Over the last 4 years my biggest investments have been in the development of wind farms, solar farms and in FON. One could argue that it is quite a diversified strategy. What correlation could there be among a global WiFi network, and wind farms and solar farms around Spain? Well there is one. On a day like today, when it is cloudy, but not windy, throughout Spain and cold everywhere in the Northern hemisphere, revenues are at their lowest in all companies. Solar Farms get no sun, Wind Farms get no wind, and people stay indoors and connect less to WiFi at FON. And on top of that, I can´t even go cycling ’cause it´s too cold! The weather sucks big-time today!

Spain is going to grant citizenship to 1.5 million grandchildren of civil war exiles. The news came as a surprise. Although I myself am an Argentine immigrant, am in favor of immigration, supported the PSOE in their amnesty and am sure that things would be going much worse for Spain had it not welcomed 4 million immigrants since the year 2000, I believe that this measure is a mistake by the government. There are two main reasons for this: one is the criterion for selection, as only one out of four grandparents needs to have been exiled; the other is the idea itself: welcoming many new Spaniards during a period in which things in general are going pretty poorly for Spain, and it is simply not capable of receiving many new immigrants without jobs and a nationality. Moreover this measure stands in great contrast with other government measures in which residents in Spain are given rewards to return to their country.

Potentially allowing 20% more immigrants to enter the country, chosen because of who their grandparents were, abandons the concept of meritocracy in practice until now, which says that an immigrant has to have a work contract. With respect to immigrants, Spain needs to have a selection criterion that has more to do with who they are today and not so much who one of their deceased grandparents was. There is no doubt in my mind that it was an enormous injustice that so many Spaniards had to emigrate more than 70 years ago. What is not very clear to me is how there is a stronger connection between that – in most cases – already deceased person that had to leave and his or her grandchild than there is, for example, between a current Argentinean resident of Spain and his own family, whom he cannot bring, even though he already lives in Spain and contributes to the country. I understand the concept of citizenship passing from parents to their children, especially because it is about the reunification of family, but passing it from a grandparent to all of his or her offspring is an idea that – although beautiful – ends up producing an enormous pool of possible candidates without job offers whom, at this time, Spain simply cannot take in.

What’s more, if the idea is to link immigration with family, then to me the case of the immigrant with a deceased grandparent who was exiled is much less convincing than the case of a husband or wife who wants to have citizenship and bring his or her living spouse or children now. It doesn’t make sense to think about an injustice that occurred 75 years ago and forget about a current one. In other countries, immigration is seen as a quota issue, and the best way to fill said quota is sought. While I do believe that a tremendous injustice was committed by Franco 3 generations ago I believe that a new one is being made today if nationality is not granted first to those foreigners now working in Spain who are not allowed to bring their loved ones.

YouTube´s new moral guidelines are suprising. In America, people confuse nudity with pornography and it is unfortunate that YouTube is a global site so we all have to live by American standards. In America, as opposed to Europe, nudity is a no-no. But then when it gets to violence anything goes. I don´t think much should be censored on YouTube. If it was up to me I would territorialize it, not censor it. But if I was forced to censor I would ban graphic violence way ahead of nudity. Seeing people die, people tortured, corpses, real war scenes, shocks me much more than seeing people naked.

Pietro Saccomani, my TA of last year at my entrepreneurship class has started a group in Facebook that is called I studied entrepreneurship with Martin Varsavsky. If you were ever a student of mine please feel free to join. Thank you XL for the recommendation to start this group. In theory there could be over 500 people who have studied with me in the last 10 years at IE. But students are all over the world now and I don´t really know how to reach them other than blogging about this group.

Headshot of Kevin Rose during a live filming o...

Image via Wikipedia

I met Kevin Rose co founder of Digg and Pownce a couple of times. I found him smart, funny and engaging. I signed up for Pownce after we met, over a year ago. But now Pownce is shutting down. I just woke up in Madrid with this email from them.


We are sad to announce that Pownce is shutting down on December 15,
2008. As of today, Pownce will no longer be accepting new users or new
pro accounts.
To help with your transition, we have built an export tool so you can
save your content. You can find the export tool at Settings > Export.
Please export your content by December 15, 2008, as the site will not
be accessible after this date.
Please visit our new home to find out more:
http://www.sixapart.com/pownce
Our thanks go out to everyone who contributed to the Pownce community,

The Pownce Crew

Pownce was supposed to be a “better Twitter” but Kevin, founder of Pownce has become extremely famous on …Twitter. To me that is as if Steve Jobs used Blackberry as his main communication platform. Not good. Because as raw communication power goes with over 75K followers on Twitter (I only have 2500) Kevin is a walking PR machine. This ranking will give you a sense of how famous Kevin is on Twitter. He is only second to Barack Obama! Pity he could not use that power and the promotional tools of Digg (Diggnation) to make Pownce the success it could have been. And Twitter itself, as popular as it is, still needs to achieve two milestones: one is to get out of the geek community itself and truly go mainstream, and the other is to find a way to charge for its services. Charging for sending SMS would be a start. As the financial crisis continues and VC´s stop funding fame and finally seek fortune, Silicon Valley´s new motto will be “earn or die”.

Español / English


Subscribe to e-mail bulletin:
Recent Tweets