I really cannot appreciate how dedicated all 'bloggers' are, I am already so swamped that I barely have time to sleep and do the normal things, let alone blogging!
However, not one to give up easily, I will give it a try for a whole year minimum to see how it goes. (well, this post I drafted in March... what month is this now!?)
I started to comment on A date with the planet in March after been to that lovely event organised by George Polk, but drafted and never managed to finish and publish it. Its probably my typical habit of trying to draft it right and double/triple check by people (for business journals or book chapters on my business sectors). Does it mean that the quality of blogger's writing could be affected as people try to 'publish' it sooner rather than later?
I guess its the idea that counts.
I have been to so many different sector's events and met with so many great people in the last few months that I still have tonnes of business cards to follow up, from renewable energy, VCs/PEs, gaming, government departments in UK, Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Madrid etc. etc.
One thing is for sure, it is that people are continuously looking for good and likeable people to hope to stay in touch and see what real and substantial opportunities may lie and hope to position to capitalise on it.
Same rationale happens in the carbon trading (aim to control/minimise on carbon emission), to clean tech, and even ways of finding/checking/and investing in start-up and mid-market growth firms in China.
REAL question is if the market is keep changing, rules are being formed (nationally and internationally), does it mean that only limited number of people who has the overall view of the opportunities can win or be able to profit (at least for the long term). And if so, is it likely that those people that has the most amount of resources are more likely to win?
Not necessarily as we can see that even major firms, don't want to name names, quite a few major private banks in the last few months just re-merge their hedge fund operations back into their asset management operations.
Therefore it does not mean likes of The Climate capital or major Private Equity firms would do well in their sector given billions funds.
One of the key message from the China Venture capital and Private Equity forum, keynotes from Andrew Yan and Hugo Shong both mentioned that its not just money but insight, and adaptability to the local culture/opportunities. Thats why mostly the successes have been with those firms like Andrew and Hugos.
However, not one to give up easily, I will give it a try for a whole year minimum to see how it goes. (well, this post I drafted in March... what month is this now!?)
I started to comment on A date with the planet in March after been to that lovely event organised by George Polk, but drafted and never managed to finish and publish it. Its probably my typical habit of trying to draft it right and double/triple check by people (for business journals or book chapters on my business sectors). Does it mean that the quality of blogger's writing could be affected as people try to 'publish' it sooner rather than later?
I guess its the idea that counts.
I have been to so many different sector's events and met with so many great people in the last few months that I still have tonnes of business cards to follow up, from renewable energy, VCs/PEs, gaming, government departments in UK, Shanghai, Beijing, Hong Kong, Madrid etc. etc.
One thing is for sure, it is that people are continuously looking for good and likeable people to hope to stay in touch and see what real and substantial opportunities may lie and hope to position to capitalise on it.
Same rationale happens in the carbon trading (aim to control/minimise on carbon emission), to clean tech, and even ways of finding/checking/and investing in start-up and mid-market growth firms in China.
REAL question is if the market is keep changing, rules are being formed (nationally and internationally), does it mean that only limited number of people who has the overall view of the opportunities can win or be able to profit (at least for the long term). And if so, is it likely that those people that has the most amount of resources are more likely to win?
Not necessarily as we can see that even major firms, don't want to name names, quite a few major private banks in the last few months just re-merge their hedge fund operations back into their asset management operations.
Therefore it does not mean likes of The Climate capital or major Private Equity firms would do well in their sector given billions funds.
One of the key message from the China Venture capital and Private Equity forum, keynotes from Andrew Yan and Hugo Shong both mentioned that its not just money but insight, and adaptability to the local culture/opportunities. Thats why mostly the successes have been with those firms like Andrew and Hugos.
Same would apply for the carbon/clean tech and other emerging markets, however, some may argue that there might be some altruistic goals for certain sector, having found and run CXO, I can identify with that, but not sure how sustainable it is!
Until next time (hopefully not seven months!).
Until next time (hopefully not seven months!).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment