As comenta un pic despre legea referitoare la investitiile de tip Business Angels, aflata in discutie publica . Au mai fost ceva discutii aici si exista undeva si textul propusei legi, dar nu il gasesc acum repede.
As structura postul in trei parti: a) ce spune legea, b) cum cred eu ca ar fi trebuit sa fie si c) ceva comentarii
a) Asa cum este sugerata acum, legea spune asa:
b) Cum cred eu ca ar fi trebuit sa fie:
Intr-un context in care experienta legata de investitii este foarte mica – Romania fiind la inceput de drum in aceasta directie – si in care antreprenorii se uita la lege cautand definitii si “best practices”, cred ca aceasta (ea, legea) ar trebui sa fie extrem de clara si concisa, definind aproape scolastic investitiile. Adica o investitie (equity) este emiterea de noi actiuni in favoarea investitorului care, in schimbul actiunilor, pune bani in companie. Orice altceva nu este o investitie. Da, sunt de acord ca exista foarte multe alternative de a simula o investitie (loans, convertible loans, achizitia de actiuni de la actionar existent si altele), dar acestea nu sunt si nu au de ce sa fie “main stream”. Ele sunt exceptii si ar trebui tratate ca atare.
Cred ca asa cum este acum aceasta propunere de lege defineste in mod gresit investitia ca fiind un imprumut si va genera o avalansa de perceptii gresite si abordari ratate.
Din nou, nu vorbesc in nici un fel despre facilitatile fiscale. Aceste facilitati sunt mult mai putin importante decat o legislatie clara, care sa nu lase loc la intrebari, fara “ifs and buts”. Nu facilitatile fiscale, ci legislatia clara, coerenta si stabila este cel mai bun “incentive” pentru un investitor.
Astfel, as indrazni sa concluzionez ca aceasta lege – asa cum este ea acum construita – face mai mult rau decat bine, incurcand borcanele si confuzand lumea. Avem oportunitatea ca intr-un domeniu in care nu exista legi sa facem legi [curate, inteligibile, fara contradictii] din prima. Si cred ca ce vedem nu face decat sa incurce. Parerea mea.
The Business Angels law in Romania
I’d like to comment a bit about the law on Angel Investments which is now under public scrutiny. There has been some discussion here and the text of the legal proposal can be found somewhere, but I couldn’t find it quickly now.
I would structure this post in three parts: a) what the law says, b) how I think it should be and c) some comments
a) As it is now outlined, the law reads as follows:
b) How I think it should be:
In a context in which there is very little experience with investments – Romania being a beginner in this direction – and in which entrepreneurs look to the law in search for definitions and best practices, I think it (the law) should be very clear and concise, defining investments almost scholastically. For example, an (equity) investment means issuing new shares in favor of the investor who, in exchange for those shares, invests money in the company. Anything else does not qualify as an investment. Yes, I agree there are many alternatives to simulate an investment (loans, convertible loans, purchasing shares from an existing shareholder and so on), but these are not and should not be considered “main stream”. These are exceptions and should be treated as such.
The way it is conceived now, I believe this legal proposal wrongly defines an investment as being a loan and, as such, it will generate an avalanche of misperceptions and failed approaches.
Again, I am not referring here to the fiscal incentives. These incentives are much less important than a clear legislation that leaves no room for questions, ifs and buts. It is not the fiscal facilities themselves, but a clear, coherent and stable legislation that offers the best incentive for an investor.
So I dare to conclude that this law – as it is now drafted – does more harm than good by mixing things up and confusing everyone. We have the opportunity, in a field where there are no laws, to make good ones [that are clear, understandable and without contradictions] from the very beginning. And I think that what we are seeing now will only confuse everybody. My 2 cents.
(English version by Teodora Popescu)
Back in November last year, I was drinking coffee at HTW and chatting with a good friend. He started telling me about how much profit he made by investing in Bitcoin. “Bit… what?” I asked and he told me a story related to a virtual currency, invented by a pseudonym (Satoshi Nakamoto) that was valued 1 USD last year (per Bitcoin) and 800 USD now. Huge profit! He even made me download a wallet and gave me a few dollars’ worth of Bitcoins. My mind was full of visions of another “Ponzi Scheme” and I made fun of him together with the rest of the guys around the table. Went back home, researched. And I was intrigued. Researched some more. And I was surprised. More work and I was amazed. Eventually, in December, I was sold. Bitcoin is the next big thing. Get prepared for a long read.
Read more »
When he left Microsoft I had an opinion which I wrote about here (2008, Ro only).
I argued that those who leave multinational companies aren’t as successful as they expected. What happened to Silviu after some time? And, BTW, what happened to MS Romania after Silviu?
Read more »
“Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is in the doing something else.”