By Sam Evidence Orikunda

One of the reasons that has kept NRM in power for the last 30 years is being accommodative and allowing different people with different ideas. Our strategy has always been clear, to accept that everyone can’t agree with you politically and what you have to do is sit with your opponent talk to him nicely, sell your ideas to him and convince that person to join your side, that’s how we have been able to have  strong opposition people join NRM and some are already Ministers.

I first heard the word “mole” from FDC and they used to refer to Mugisha Muntu and team whom they accused of being in bed with NRM. Many people in FDC party up to now do not recognise Gen Mugisha Muntu as a real opposition man. They think he has two sides, this is because the general believes in politics of peace and doesn’t embrace violence.. I do not think it would be bad for Mugisha Muntu to be close to NRM because after all this would allow him to fish from the NRM side and hence widening  his force and achieving his primary intentions.

How many of opposition people would allow an NRM person to attend their  gatherings? In fact if they realized that he is part of the gathering he would be killed, unless the person goes disguised, that’s a very bad sign because when you want to become president you look for support of people in order to vote you, all votes count in Uganda, there will not be any person who will vote and his or vote isn’t counted because he is NRM or FDC.

Out of these bad signals of lack of tolerance and accommodating different people with different ideas, the opposition has now involved in violence, politics of threatening opponents and thuggery, this started with Besigye when he introduced defiance where people would break laws intendedly as a way of getting  into power. The people who now call themselves new political force has taken it up and its becoming to heavy for them with a number of their leaders in coolers already. With violence you cannot rule out loss of Lives, destruction of property and suffering.. The situation looks as though its a war yet in actuality its violence.

If I could borrow something from religion, when Jesus Christ came on earth he found people when they had their gods, they were so much into evil acts, Jesus a great leader and politician would have defied laws of the then leaders but he didn’t, in fact he encouraged his followers to respect their leaders and the laws that govern their society those leaders could have been having a number of problems just like Opposition accuse NRM, they could have overstayed in power, but he ignored this perhaps he valued peace and love between people. Jesus Christ recruited people one by one, he did this by sitting them down and telling them what he was going to offer to them if they believed in him, people appreciated and followed him and by the time he died we believe he had recruited the whole world and that movement through Christianity has stayed for two thousand years and still growing.

This kind of abusing the people you’re against publicly and on campaigns doesn’t work. Ugandans remember well that during age limit removal debate the opposition resorted to violence, some decided to endlessly sing the national anthem and make sure they stop peaceful debate in the house, this ended into fights in Parliament and security came in to restore sanity. At the end of the day the constitution was amended and the former lost. Sobber analysts described the opposition as unserious people after all these events. Those who were calm and peaceful achieved what they supported, this would have taught them that violence has no place in Uganda and Ugandans do not believe in it.

Social media especially Facebook is the Evidence of what am talking about, thousands of people on Facebook believe that when you don’t support Bobi Wine and Besigye you shouldn’t live. That’s why anything posted against Bobi wine or Besigye will attract thousands of insults some will threaten to kill you if they come across you just because of your views, they forget that each person is entitled to their ideas and if you disagree you prove him wrong you don’t insult.
In fact most of the NRM cadres are now threatened and scared they cannot freely express their views on Facebook, any opposition person who reads this will say they have achieved and they will be so happy.

The opposition should know that if at all they need power, they will have to takeover a country that is in good state, they will need to take up a country with people who live together in peace and who peacefully talk and eat together, when you’ve killed all that you will have to start with reconciliation which is not very easy by way, the NRM took up a Ugandan society which was divided basing on tribes and religion but later people reconciled and agreed to live and work together that’s why we have recorded development and a number of achievement.

Accept different persons  and the way they’re. Appreciate the fact that they hold different views on what you believe in. They are entitled to their ideas and its their right, if you mistreat, insult, or manhandle any of them because of that then you’re losing credibility of becoming a leader and you shouldn’t waste people’s time.

Stories Continues after ad

By Martin Zwilling

Time is too precious to waste trying to close a deal with the wrong investors at the wrong time. Luckily, not all investors are looking for the same thing, so it pays to know what type of investors are most interested in what your startup brings to the table.

The key is understanding how potential investors see you, and especially how they view the maturity stage of your startup. For example, if you have a proven product, real revenue, a big potential market, and are ready to scale up the business, every investor will be interested. On the other hand, if you are a new entrepreneur, still in the idea stage, professional investors will only tell you to come back later when you have traction (customers and revenue).

Thus your startup maturity and growth stage is the primary key to success with potential funding sources. Different types of investors tend to specialize in capitalizing on businesses at different stages. Venture capital firms look for the most mature companies they can find, Angel investors typically deal a tier lower, while friends and family are most likely to help you get started.

It never hurts to start networking personally with all levels of investors early, but sending out teasers and business plans to every name you can find on the Internet is a waste of your time and theirs. It will be much more productive to categorize your startup in one of the following five stages, and limit your investor focus accordingly:

“I have a great idea and I need money to turn it into a business.” For investors, this is the idea stage, where you may have a great idea, but no plan, product, or customers, and probably no success record in this business domain. No professional investor will be interested at this point, so count only on yourself, friends, family, and fools for money.

“My invention and prototype works, but I need funding to continue.” Investors call this the seed stage, where money is required to build a market and a real product. Government grants and industry partners are you best bet here, but Angel investors might give you $250,000 to $1 million, if you have the right business case and credentials.

“The final product works great, and all the early users love it.” You are now entering the rollout stage, with money required for marketing, hiring a full-time team, and a production process. At this point, most Angel investors and a few early-stage VCs will be happy to talk, assuming you have the business model validated, and a large opportunity.

“It’s time to scale up and I need money to keep up with demand.” Congratulations! Every investor wants to be part of your growth stage, after your first $1 million in revenue. They call first investments at this stage the “A-round,” and often follow with a B-round through G-round. Growth stage investments from VCs are usually $5 million and up.

“The ride has been fun, but I need my money out to start the next big thing.” This is the exit stage for the entrepreneur, and for all earlier investors. The new investors you need at this stage are investment bankers, private equity, or competitors, to buy you out via merger or acquisition (M&A), or to go public with an Initial Public Offering (IPO).

Obviously, maturity and growth are a continuum, so the rules are never absolute. My message is that your startup will attract a different class of investors, as it passes through each stage, just as it has to supplement and tune the team, process, and product to keep up with the needs of a growing company and customer base. Tune your investor pitch and funding expectations accordingly.

Another good indicator of your real stage is the valuation you can set for your company at any given moment, to determine what portion of your equity an investor will expect of his money. Prior to the growth stage, your company valuation is limited to goodwill based on intellectual property and team experience, since you have no revenue. Future opportunity size doesn’t count in the early stages.

Contrary to popular opinion, all investor money is not the same. Friends and family believe in you, and only want to see you achieve success. Angel investors probably will know your business, and want to be mentors along the way. VCs normally come with the highest expectations of board seats, controlling votes, and milestones to meet.

Don’t sign up for one, expecting the other. If you want to avoid all these stage and investment considerations, you can always bootstrap the business (fund it yourself, and grow organically). Otherwise, be sensitive to first impression you leave on every investor, and the efficiency of your time spent on funding. You will enjoy the lifestyle a lot more when you find the right investor.

The Writer is a veteran startup mentor, executive, blogger, author, tech professional, and Angel investor. Published on Forbes, Entrepreneur, Inc.

Stories Continues after ad

By Mark Sobel

Willie Sutton, the famous US bank robber, when asked why he robbed banks allegedly said, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’ He was a master in sleuthing how banks operated before he robbed them. The same spirit of forensic analysis is needed in assessing whether countries – as often stated by US politicians, including President Donald Trump – are ‘manipulating’ their currencies. Trump repeated the charge by telling Reuters on 20 August, ‘I think China’s manipulating their currency, absolutely. And I think the euro is being manipulated also.’

The International Monetary Fund recently estimated that global imbalances are 3.25 per cent of world GDP, and 40 per cent-50 per cent of these are ‘excessive’. In the spirit of Sutton, let’s go where the money is.

Leading the list of key current account balances in 2017 was the euro area, with a surplus of US $442 billion (3.5 per cent of GDP), two-thirds of which was accounted for by Germany ( US $297 billion, around 8 per cent of GDP). Japan and China had surpluses of US $195 billion and US $167 billion respectively (4.0 per cent and 1.2 per cent of GDP), while the US ran a deficit of US $615 bILLIOn (2.4 per cent of GDP).

China is perhaps the most interesting alleged ‘manipulation’ case. The IMF projects that China’s 2018 current account surplus will be under 1 per cent of GDP. Even if China’s trade balance is around 3.3 per cent of GDP, that is far less than half of Germany’s trade surplus. Reserves, while extremely high, are generally unchanged over the last year and intervention appears to have been scant. The Fund sees the real value of the renminbi as broadly consistent with underlying fundamentals.

China is where the screams about ‘manipulation’ are the loudest. But the case is by far the weakest.

In recent months, a new line of argumentation has emerged. Analysts argue China is letting the renminbi fall to compensate for current account losses, arising from Trump’s higher tariffs; and/or that Chinese authorities are snubbing Trump to send Washington a message.

These arguments are not persuasive. The dollar has risen across the board. The renminbi’s decline against the dollar since mid-April is broadly in line with the dollar’s general rise. The reasons are clear – US growth is solid and interest rates are rising; China’s growth appears to be moderating; and the Chinese authorities have been easing monetary policy. Washington’s continued harsh rhetoric about tariffs against China further exacerbates renminbi selling. It is argued capital controls allow China to tightly manage the currency, but the capital controls are not hermetic.

The authorities’ response to renminbi depreciation suggests they are trying to limit it. Reports indicate the central bank has been calling banks to warn against herd behaviour that could increase renminbi volatility. The authorities imposed a 20 per cent reserve requirement on forward renminbi positions, raising the cost of short positions. They have called for the currency to remain broadly stable.

If one turns to other countries on the ‘manipulation’ radar, the euro area’s large surplus reflects the huge surpluses of Germany and several northern European countries, and the demand compression that previously large deficit countries experienced in past years. It is hard to apply the concept of currency manipulation here. The European Central Bank hasn’t intervened on the foreign exchange market; its monetary policy is appropriately accommodative, aimed at achieving its inflation objective.

Euro area member states neither conduct monetary policy nor have exchange rate policies. But they do control the other policies that are relevant to the question of ‘excessive’ surpluses. Which brings us to Germany, which has by far the world’s largest individual current account surplus in nominal terms. At 8 per cent of GDP, the relative level is also very high. Further, it almost all consists of the trade surplus. The IMF puts Germany’s ‘excessive’ current account surplus at a whopping 5.5 per cent of GDP, and the ‘German euro’s’ undervaluation at 10 per cent-20 percent.

The ECB’s stance is too accommodative from a German perspective, but monetary policy must be formulated for the monetary union as a whole. Germany cannot ‘manipulate’ its exchange rate, as it doesn’t have one. But imbalanced economic policies can yield the same result.

Germany’s national saving is high, underpinned by strong household and robust corporate saving, plus fiscal surpluses bolstering public saving. To reduce its excessive surplus, Germany could increase fiscal spending for infrastructure and so on. But it is instead committed to the ‘schwarze Null’ (‘black zero’) or balanced budget. The authorities could also take a good look at policies underpinning why private household and corporate saving is so strong.

Japan is in a less problematic position. It has a current account surplus of 4 per cent. But, according to the IMF, the current account norm is above 3 per cent, implying a small ‘excess’. The Fund sees the yen’s value as broadly consistent with underlying Japanese fundamentals.

Were Sutton alive, espying such large sums stuffed in a bank, he would surely salivate. But before he struck, he’d apply keen analysis to casing the joint. My advice on the currency issue to Trump is that he needs to take similar precautions.

Mark Sobel is US Chairman of OMFIF. He is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy at the US Treasury and until earlier this year US representative at the International Monetary Fund.

Stories Continues after ad