Capital Finance (part the Les Echos Groupe) features an article today on the discombobulations affecting the country’s tax-incentivized fund structures: FCPIs and FIPs.

I’ve written in the past on the perverse effects that these taxpayer-funded structures can have on the venture capital sector.  And for full disclosure, a significant percentage of Truffle’s funds under management are in the form of FCPIs, whose closest resemblance in Europe would probably be the UK’s VCT structure.

{As a reminder, an FCPI, or fonds commun de placement à risque, is a French fund vehicle managed by venture capital firms with a requirement to invest in innovative technology companies.  An FIP, or fonds d’investissement de proximité, is a French fund vehicle that requires investment in a specific region of France.  Both vehicles raise their funds from taxpayers who are in turn offered a substantial tax credit on their income tax, wealth tax, or both}.

The article reveals the preponderant role that distributors play in the annual collection of these vehicles.  All it takes is one or two large distributors to change partners, and any given fund management company or VC firm can shift from having a banner fundraising year to falling off the map.

I’ll explore this perverse distribution game another time, but in the meantime, invite you to read the full article here (subscription required, though a free trial is sometimes available).

For me, however, the money shot of the article is a citation from an anonymous professional of the sector:

« Les ratios, délais et contraintes de toutes sortes se sont multipliés, selon qu’il s’agit d’un FIP ou d’un FCPI, d’un fonds ISF ou IR.  Un véhicule fiscal peut désormais devoir satisfaire simultanément jusqu’à quatorze obligations différentes, voire contradictoire. »

Roughly translated: [The ratios, deadlines, and myriad investment constraints governing these fund structures have ballooned.  Such vehicles nowadays often find themselves in a situation of having to satisfy up to 14 different investment constraints concurrently, some of which can even be contradictory.]

This is unhealthy.  As we’ve witnessed with the U.S. tax code, legal complexity combined with high stakes benefits the lawyers not the entrepreneurs.

John Bogle is one of my idols of the financial world.  He is best known for revolutionizing the mutual fund industry by demonstrating the superiority of index funds over traditional actively-managed mutual funds over the long term.  In the mid-70’s, Bogle established The Vanguard Group and subsequently created the Vanguard 500 Index Fund as the first index mutual fund available to the general public.

Bogle’s investment values center on favoring the little guy, the individual investor who doesn’t have the capital nor the advanced trading technologies that are at the disposal of professional traders and investment banks.

By lashing out yesterday against the tax rate on carried interest, Bogle remains classically true to form in leveling the playing field for the average joe.  “Carried interest is a bit of a technical fraud,” as he says.

The debate about the tax on carried interest has surged in the U.S. thanks to revelations that potential Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid an overall effective tax rate of less than 14% in 2010.  One of the principal reasons that Romney, whose income was in the tens of millions, paid such a low effective rate is the fact that most of his income came in the form of carried interest from his time at Bain Capital, which was taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15%.

I admire John Bogle.  Just as he saw the 2~5% annual management fees on actively-managed mutual funds as a hoodwinking of the public, he exposes the low carried interest tax as a fiscal boondoggle to most private equity and VC general partners who are investing other people’s money.

Perhaps as a VC myself, I should fall firmly on the side of keeping the carried interest tax at rock-bottom.  However, I have two major objections to not raising it substantially.  First, financially, I am not in the same boat as GPs in the U.S.  The effective carried interest tax in France is over 30% when counting all auxiliary social charges.  Moreover, as a U.S. citizen with a French salary, I am paying tax to two countries, setting my cumulative effective income tax rate at an obscene 67%.  So Romney pays 14%; I pay a whopping two-thirds.  I find this infuriating.

Even more importantly, however, giving carried interest a tax break is totally unfair.  Carried interest is essentially a fee paid for managing other people’s money.  This fee happens to be based on performance, but it is a fee nonetheless.  The logic of rewarding investment risk with a lower tax rate is not relevant for a GP whose carried interest income is by and large pure gravy (granted, with a tad of personal investment, but this is extremely limited).

Fred Wilson presents a third compelling argument that taxing carried interest as ordinary income is good policy.  I encourage you to read Fred’s post if you haven’t seen it.

Perhaps it took a circus of in-fighting in the U.S. Republican primaries to bring this issue to light, but I am glad that the media and the public are taking notice.

It has been interesting to follow the recent transatlantic flap triggered by Ilan Abehassera’s interview in Betabeat.

Abehassera denigrated the French entrepreneurial scene in a piece that oozed of auto-pr; Liam Boogar of Rude Baguette called b.s. In reality, I suspect both individuals were viewing the same market but through the lenses of different eras.

The brouhaha fizzled before it became exciting, mostly because Boogar refused to play the tit-for-tat game. Which is admirable, though I would have liked to see some fisticuffs on this issue, because there’s clearly a departure underway now from the traditional stereotypes about tech entrepreneurship in France clung to by Abehassera that is a very recent but indisputable phenomenon.

I’ve been a tech VC in Paris for ten years now, and I submit that we’re now enthusiastically witnessing the Deepak Chopra moment for the French entrepreneurial scene. In other words, French entrepreneurship seems to be finally breaking out of the karmic cycle of risk-aversion, underinvestment, and narrow ambitions (Chopra is notorious for exhausting the metaphor of kundalini teachings in business world applications, but if you’re not convinced, read: The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success). But you have to be on the ground here to detect this phenomenon, trust me.

The new generation of French entrepreneurs are breaking the mold. Every single finalist of the Founders Institute program — and every member of Le Camping I’ve met — pitches a well thought-through yet audacious venture with global ambitions reminiscent of what I heard in Silicon Valley in the 90s. First-time teams that have failed make strategic pivots and try again. French co-founders of bay area companies return to France for their second or third ventures (yes, it really happens). I even know of a few cases of Americans moving to Paris to start their tech companies. Granted, a lot of this evidence is anecdotal, but stories like these were unheard of five years ago, even eighteen months ago.

The government, on which the French often instinctively rely to take the lead in innovation, is stepping up in it’s role too. Between record Oseo subsidy grants, the newly-formed Fonds National d’Amorçage (the new 400m€ state-sponsored seed fund-of-funds), and it’s continued support (for the moment) of the tax-break-incentivized investment vehicles like FCPIs, FIPs, and ISF Holdings, early-stage capital is flooding the market. Does France’s legal framework around labor law leave room for improvement ? Of course. But this double-edged sword has benefits. For example, with programs like the Accre, unemployed workers can receive an advance of 50% of their 23-months of unemployment benefits if they apply it to starting a new business. And the government’s efforts to untangle the red tape of the past has rendered company creation formalities inexpensive and fast. As a matter of fact, just recently at Truffle we aided our partners in incorporating 7 brand new companies in the week between Christmas and New Year’s.

On the investment side, there’s definitely still a ways to go (mea culpa). But with the increasingly ubiquitous collection of professionally-run incubators (see How many startup accelerators is too many?), and seed funds like Isai and Kima, France is no longer totally devoid of U.S.-style early-stage investing.

Yet I submit that it is in the corporate sector where change is slowest. Whether it’s due to conservative values, complex decision-making processes, or insular networks, French enterprises do not have it in their DNA to do business with startups. There’s an old joke that a French software startup has better odds selling into American corporations than into its own backyard that still holds true. It’s no coincidence that the new generation of French startups gaining the most traction nowadays are by and large consumer internet plays.

To all you French entrepreneurial refugees in the States, I salute you for being adventuresome. I hold a (conveniently self-serving) respect for entrepreneurial immigrants in both countries. But also realize that it’s soon going to be safe to come home again.

Our portfolio company NetMediaEurope didn’t always see things this clearly. In the throes of the post-Lehman media recession, which witnessed plummeting banner ad revenues for B2B media websites globally, NME seriously considered extending its tentacles into the B2C content sector.

The idea seemed attractive to the board at the time. With its pan-European footprint of titles like ITEspresso, Silicon, and The Inquirer, the company found itself exposed on multiple fronts: first, B2B technology ad budgets had been slashed by all large tech companies; but moreover, NME’s core markets of France, Germany, Spain, and Italy were all entering recession.

On digital content’s B2C side, things weren’t nearly as dire. Although CPMs were experiencing downward pressure, the diversity of audience and thus advertising base enabled quality consumer-facing websites like CommentCaMarche.com to remain sheltered from the downturn in corporate ad spending. The siren’s call of relative ad revenue stability on the consumer side was challenging to resist, especially when financial investors become alarmed at the impact on the bottom line short-term. Something had to be done !

But to the management team’s credit, they held their ground. Actually, they doubled-down. At the 2009 low point for B2B digital media, NME opened a UK presence. Even more crucially at the time, the company began brainstorming on how to diversify its revenue base while best leveraging its valuable audience of corporate IT decison-makers, such as expanding into lead generation. I won’t elaborate on the details because the story is still being written. But in hindsight it looks as though those difficult decisions at the nadir of the global financial crisis proved genius.

Charlie McCurdy, CEO of Apprise Media reinforced some of these choices in his excellent presentation at American Business Media’s Advanced Leadership Program on The Future of B2B Media. “Marketers are probably not buying banners or sponsorships for the media exposure, they want to drive leads to their websites. If white papers or Google AdSense deliver, they’ll do that instead.” In terms of b-to-b marketing share, ABM attendees forecast that live events would grow from 45.1% in 2011 to 48.4% in 2016; digital would grow from 12.8% in 2011 to 18.2% in 2016; and print would fall from 29.2% in 2011 to 11.7% in 2016.

In late 2010, NME witnessed a return of the banner ad budgets from corporates, but makes no secret of its appreciation of the importance of a diverse offer for this core client base, nor of the importance of scale. The company recently acquired the German subsidiary of CBS Interactive, and is on the hunt for additional acquisitions in Britain and France.

Nowadays it’s very fashionable in startup parlance to talk about strategic ‘pivots’. Indeed, the accelerating pace of innovation in technology often creates an environment where only those startups capable of redirecting their strategy on a dime can avoid obsolesence. But if there’s a moral to this story, it’s that there are no easy answers. Sometimes a ‘pivot’ is needed. Sometimes it’s better to scrap everything and restart with a blank sheet of paper. And yet sometimes, the old-fashioned wisdom of ‘sticking to your knitting’ prevails.

Wednesday’s blackout by several websites in protest of SOPA undoubtedly pushed the pending SOPA legislation against the ropes.  As the NY Times reported, this was a case of grassroots new media beating the old guard.

On January 17, only 31 members of the U.S. House of Representatives opposed the legislation, with 80 in support.  The day after the Jan.18 blackout, the 31-member opposition had surged to 122-strong (see ProPublica).  Even this microscopic blog’s activism elicited a surprising number of reactions here in France, including even from an assistant to a U.S. Congressman that happened to be on vacation in Paris.

But this is only round 1.  The $63m-funded army of lobbyists defending the well-financed old guard media are still in the ring.  David Binetti offers an insightful op-ed in TechCrunch explaining how the lobbyists will most likely take the fight to the most powerful influencers of the opposition directly, i.e. venture capitalists and thought leaders of digital media giants.  Round 2 will prove interesting.

My question is what should we do about this in Europe.  Europe was largely silent in round 1 (heaven knows we have other problems right now).  A typical government policy, like that of the UK, is to not intervene in the domestic legislative debates of another sovereign nation.  This is understandable.  But nefarious ill-conceived copyright legislation like SOPA would affect citizens of Europe as well.  What is the appropriate level of response?  I submit that it has to start with netizens of European digital media as well, a grass-roots effort just like in the U.S.

Hopefully, as Binetti suggests, this incident of SOPA opposition will come to represent an inflection point in the disruption of the entire political industry.  What if a successful political campaign relied not on how well-financed it is, but rather on mastery of social media to communicate a platform of integrity?  Now that would be something.

This blog is admittedly a small fry, but principles matter.  And based on principle and in a show of solidarity with popular websites like Reddit, Minecraft, Craigslist, Wikipedia, and A VC, this blog will join them in going lights out tomorrow in protest of the SOPA legislation currently pending in congress.

For more rationale, see: Why SOPA must be stopped

.

Today our portfolio company NetMediaEurope announced the acquisition of CBS Interactive’s German subsidiary. I am convinced that this transaction is a win/win arrangement for both buyer and seller.

The divestment allows CBSI to focus on its core markets of North America and Asia. For NME, it enables the company to shore up its previously modest presence in Germany with one of the top online IT media players. Now NME counts a truly pan-European footprint in France, Germany, the UK, Spain, and Italy. Notable online brands of CBSI Germany include ZDNet.de, CNET.de, and Silicon.de. NME combined will now attain close to 20 million monthly page impressions on its network of websites, all dedicated to B2B IT professionals, consistent with the company’s strategy to remain focused on high-value audiences. This acquisition also provides a significant bump in revenues to the profitable venture, which we carved out of the former VNU Group in 2007.

I commend the heroic efforts of Dominique Busso, Anilda Billon, Ruud Bakker, and the rest of NME’s leadership team in executing on this game-changing acquisition, and we welcome CBSI Germany into the NME family.

Here is a link to the announcement in TechWeekEurope.