Category: Venture Capital

Three unicorns & a VC

In my 1st year as a VC, I was fortunate enough to source 3 of the best enterprise startups built out of India over the last decade.

Reflecting on what these companies looked like before they became massive successes and the lessons that taught me about the best way to approach venture investing.

In my first year as a VC Associate in 2011, I started supporting a GP who was native to Chennai, already had some portfolio companies there and was informally leading coverage for the region. Naturally, I started visiting the city regularly and was perhaps one of the few VCs at the time who was spending significant bandwidth in the ecosystem there. And mind you, this is way before the city became the SaaS powerhouse it is today. I spent the most time in events around IIT Chennai, especially in the Rural Technology & Business Incubator (RTBI) there. This is the time when Zoho wasn’t a household name yet, and a few interesting startups like Stayzilla and Ticketnew had just started to emerge.

Candidly, I used to feel a little foolish every time I boarded the flight to Chennai. Was I just wasting my time by not covering Bangalore & Delhi? Which venture-backable company could I realistically hope to find in an IIT’s incubator, that too one which had the word “rural” in it? While my colleagues were neck deep in sourcing hot eCommerce deals from Tier 1 hubs, was I missing the boat by spending time with boring enterprise software & niche consumer Internet companies started by these humble, grinding-type founder personas?

What I didn’t know at the time was that meeting founders in an under-covered but growing hub like Chennai was actually a competitive advantage, a potential “edge” that was there to be leveraged. It led to me meeting two of the best enterprise software founders from the last decade, at a time when both companies were fledgling – Girish Mathrubootham of Freshworks and Umesh Sachdev of Uniphore. My guess is I was also one of the first VCs to ever meet them.

I met Girish during a really nondescript startup event in Chennai. He wasn’t even pitching there, and the organizer randomly introduced us after the event. I still remember Freshdesk had 25 beta customers at the time. I took the deal back to the senior team; we had one call with him but didn’t end up investing for a variety of reasons. Talk about missing the deal-of-the-century!

While meeting Girish was more serendipity, I give myself more credit for spotting Umesh. I was the only godforsaken VC who had built a deep relationship with the RTBI team at IIT Chennai. As part of one of my visits, the lead there introduced me to Umesh & Ravi. They were building Uniphore out of the lab there, with the active support & guidance of Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala. I don’t remember the exact traction they had at the time, but it was really early. They were building voice technology keeping rural/ vernacular use cases for India hinterland in mind, which was nicely aligned with RTBI’s mission.

While I didn’t get to interact much with Girish, Umesh and I spent a bunch of time together. I brought him in 2 times to meet the Fund’s senior team, once just before I was about to leave VC and move to the Bay Area. Fortunately, Uniphore didn’t become an anti-portfolio like Freshworks. One year after I had left the Fund in early 2014, it ended up investing in Uniphore. Cut to Feb’22, Uniphore raised a $400Mn growth round at a $2.5Bn valuation, becoming a trail-blazing Indian startup story of grit & perseverance.

As I write this, another similar story comes to mind. Again, in my first year of VC, I had a chance to meet Baskar Subramanian, co-founder of Amagi. This was the most non-intuitive play ever. At the time, Amagi’s flagship offering was a platform to insert regional, localized ads in popular TV programming. For example, say during a national TV soap telecast on Sun TV, viewers in Chennai & Coimbatore would see different vernacular ads of local brands from their specific locations.

If one went by the classic VC playbook of pattern matching, Amagi wouldn’t make it beyond the first meeting (perhaps why most funds passed on it at the time). The company’s existing market didn’t seem like it would support a venture outcome. On top of it, Baskar came across as the polar opposite of a typical VC-backed founder archetype. He was a bit nerdy, a bit fidgety, a bit unpolished around the edges but really smart & always with a big smile.

As expected, while the Fund passed on investing, two things stood out to me even then:

  • Amagi had signs of early product-market-fit in the use case it was going after.
  • Baskar and team were gritty, grounds-up entrepreneurs with a humble vibe, strong belief in their overall market thesis & the energy to play the long game.

Candidly though, I was still in my 1st year of learning the craft of venture investing & even though I caught these signals from 1st principles, I didn’t have the experience & chops to convert these signals into conviction & fight for the deal internally.

Cut to Nov’22, Amagi raised a $100Mn Series F from General Atlantic at a $1.4Bn valuation, with the company hitting $100Mn ARR! From its origins of inserting local TV ads in the Southern states of India, it has now become a global software platform for cloud broadcast & targeted advertising.

These and many other stories that I have experienced over a decade of early-stage investing, have taught me a valuable lesson – given the inherent randomness in outcomes, a terrible way to do venture investing is to be dogmatic. While frameworks, heuristics & pattern-matching do help evaluate deals more efficiently, you can’t become a slave to them.

Outlier venture outcomes typically come from unintuitive & unpredictable places. If one studies the history of the biggest wins in both public & private markets, they mostly emerge from “non-consensus-and-right” situations. Spotting these, by definition, requires an independent & radically open mind.

When Tim Ferris asked legendary VC Bill Gurley of Benchmark about why he thinks he missed investing in Google, Bill had a tremendously self-reflective response:

Essentially, Bill is saying that at the time, Google was the exact opposite of a classic VC template deal. And that’s exactly what should have pushed him to evaluate it more deeply as a non-consensus bet. In the words of my friend Nakul Mandan of Audacious Ventures – “the pedigreed, buttoned-down, big logo’d, all-bases-covered teams often end up generating a 1.5-2x return while the maverick, underdog, underestimated, headstrong, quirky founder ends up creating the 100x bagger”.

Marc Andreessen has a great expression around the optimal mindset for venture investing (also applies to starting a company) – “Strong opinions, loosely held“. I like to call it having a radically open mind while evaluating any opportunity. In my head, this approach includes:

1/ Turning over every rock to find deals.

2/ Not discounting any vertical/ space upfront, irrespective of general ecosystem biases.

3/ Not underestimating any founder, irrespective of age, pedigree, or track record.

4/ Trying to probe further when the gut feeling is positive but misaligned with VC thumb rules.

5/ Listening to co-investor feedback but making up your mind independently.

6/ Trying to imagine “What if everything goes right?”.

7/ Finally, getting super-excited when a company seems non-consensus.

This is the behavioral North Star I am chasing & where, I believe, the real Alpha in venture investing lies.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

Doing more with less

As an angel, one of the strongest leading signals I look for in a startup is progress per unit of capital – how much forward movement has the team achieved & the resources it has consumed for it.

My thoughts on why a capital-efficient mindset is so important for early-stage tech founders.

Having seen 1000s of deals across a decade of investing my own as well as institutional money, I rarely cringe while evaluating a new company. As an investor, I have often seen the same goods-and-bads in other deals several times before. As an ex-founder, I have walked the path & made the same unforced errors so almost every time, I can empathize & almost pre-empt why a founder is doing things a certain way.

However, there is one specific thing that is guaranteed to make me cringe – a founder attempting to raise an amount that is totally out-of-sync with where the business is. In many cases, this is accompanied by other precursors:

  • No intent to bootstrap from idea to “some” traction.
  • Wasteful handling of the last round.
  • Coding & building product for months at a stretch without putting anything meaningful in front of customers.

Personally, one of the strongest leading signals I look for in a startup is progress per unit of capital – how much forward movement has the team achieved & the resources it has consumed for it, especially when evaluated relative to other comparable startups.

I remember an interesting learning from my time at IDG Ventures (now Chiratae). Sudhir Sethi, the Managing Partner & the lead investor who had backed Myntra (Zappos of India at that time; was eventually acquired by Flipkart for ~$300Mn in 2014), often cited how when he went to meet Mukesh Bansal (the founder) for the first time at the Myntra office, he observed they were working out of a dingy space in a classic Indian neighborhood market with the ground floor occupied by a fruit & vegetable vendor. Sudhir used this as one of the positive signals for the team’s ability to execute in a cut-throat eCommerce vertical like fashion.

Fast forward a few years, and I got a similar insight yet again in the retail context. While working with Alibaba, I saw how frugal the Group was in terms of saving every dollar of operating cost. eCommerce works on wafer-thin margins, especially in highly competitive & price-conscious markets like Asia. And one could see this by comparing the bare minimum facilities & perks we got at the US HQ in San Mateo vs even well-funded growth startups, which were offering everything from catered meals to draft beer stations at that time.

Why is a capital-efficient mindset so important for early-stage tech founders? It’s because they are playing a game where the odds are hugely stacked against them. Where 9 out of 10 new startups fail on average. Where the starting point and end point of companies are vastly different, with each year choked with iterations, a major pivot every few years, and team members jumping on & off the ship.

Setting yourself up to have even a remote chance of winning such a game requires many shots at the goal, many course corrections, and many resets. At the same time, capital is scarce at the pre-PMF stages even for the best teams. Capitalism is brutally efficient, throttling money when relative risk is high, & opening the faucet once success is highly certain (typically post-PMF).

Building even a decently sized company can take anywhere from 6-8 years, & up to 15+ years. In such a long period, both the overall economy as well as your specific market will go through several cycles. The key is surviving long enough, even with limited capital, to be able to walk this arduous path.

This is what the best founders bring to the table – using investor capital like their own, each dollar wisely deployed towards only what’s truly necessary for the stage, raising each round with specific milestones in mind, and realizing that ownership is everything, with each bps of dilution being the costliest trade shareholders can make. To me, this mindset & building approach is perhaps the biggest signal of perseverance in a team.

Come to think of it, in the non-tech world where starting a business isn’t called “doing a startup”, entrepreneurs typically use their savings to get going, & once there is enough business confidence & profitable revenue flowing-in, grow using either internal accruals or debt. Initial bootstrapping creates skin-in-the-game, profitable revenue creates high confidence that customers want what you are making, & debt creates financial discipline around managing cash flows while preserving the founder’s ownership to compensate for all the risk they have taken.

This model has been used by everyone from Sam Walton to Richard Branson, & continues to survive in all parts of the SMB economy. While the venture capital model definitely works for building tech companies, which are asset-light, highly scalable & operate in winner-takes-all dynamics, I believe the founders who are in it for the long run build with a similar philosophy – planning for the next basecamp & raising conservatively, maintaining discipline around cash & giving high importance to ownership.

On a related note, I wanted to share something I recently wrote on Twitter regarding a fundraising pitfall specifically for serial founders:

Often see serial founders who have seen success before (scale and/ or exit), raise large rounds at high valuations at the idea stage!

From what I have seen, even the most successful founders have operated in phases where a lack of capital could have potentially killed their startup. That’s probably why on the 2nd attempt, they try and take that risk out of the equation at the beginning itself.

Oddly enough though, having a capital-rich Plan B to fall back on reduces the scrappy iterativeness, discipline & underdog mindset that startups usually need to succeed. And which probably contributed to their success the 1st time too.

In asymmetric bets like startups, to reference The Dark Knight Rises, “the way to climb out of the pit is without a rope”.

Hopefully, as this cycle resets, all of us founders & investors will go back to the drawing board & start appreciating Benjamin Franklin’s age-old virtue of frugality as a key to success in business & life.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

Conviction vs Randomness in Venture Investing

Photo by Nigel Tadyanehondo on Unsplash

Recently came across a fascinating Twitter thread from June 2020 by Dave McClure, ex-founder of 500Startups, where he talks about how “investing with conviction” is a myth. This tweet captures his sentiments well:

I agree with several arguments in this thread:

1/ Picking winners in early-stage investing is really hard. Power laws govern the best venture portfolios, driving down the hitting %. Per Horsley Bridge data, even for a top VC firm like Sequoia, ~4.5% of portfolio companies generate 2/3rd of aggregate returns.

2/ Intelligent venture investing, by its very nature, involves making both Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Therefore, even high-conviction deals are likely to exhibit unexpected outcomes, both positive & negative.

3/ There is a lot of hindsight bias in the way investor narratives are created around companies that turned out to be successful – “Look, I had high conviction on this deal & it turned out exactly as I expected. Ergo, I can predict the future”.

So in games like this where outcomes are random & often uncorrelated with the level of effort that goes in, does it make sense to discard the input process?

Based on more than a decade of venture experience, I tend to view it differently. I believe it’s still important to have a rigorous process of building conviction and to keep improving it bit by bit with each experience. Even though eventual outcomes might still be random, this approach helps tilt the playing field a little in your favor every time. Over a long enough time horizon, as one keeps taking more shots at the goal & with continuously improving odds, the hope is that a home run arrives sooner than later.

Particularly at the earliest stages (angel/ pre-seed/ seed), especially with the advent of small check investments ($1-5k via syndicates/ SPVs) attracting a new generation of 1st-time investors, it’s easy to assume that outcomes are randomized & therefore, fall into the trap of doing spray-and-pray that isn’t backed by an intelligent investment process.

It’s important for new angels to first deeply study the asset class & build their personal investment process – areas of expertise, focus sectors, stages, target founder persona, deal flow engine, unique value-add to get into best deals etc. Post which, the odds of success are significantly better.

While being a champion of a “conviction-building” investment process, I also agree with the 3 takeaways that Dave closes the thread with, regarding having enough shots on goal:

Even with the most intelligent investment process, venture investors need to acknowledge their limited picking ability & therefore, keep taking enough intelligent shots at the goal for the odds to work in their favor. Semil Shah of Haystack wrote a great post titled “Shots on Goal” on this idea a while back.

Equally important as portfolio diversification via numbers, is making asymmetric investments – ensuring that the few winning bets have huge outcomes so that even with a high loss ratio, the returns math still works at the portfolio level. The smartest thing a venture investor can do is to befriend the power law, and work towards being on the right side of it!

To summarize, acknowledging the randomness of venture outcomes doesn’t need to be at odds with running a rigorous & continuously-evolving investing process. In fact, such a system should be intelligently designed to account for this randomness, combined with other considerations like power laws, compounding, economic cyclicality etc. Even a few points of “edge” that is systematically created with each experience, can slowly accumulate into a sizable alpha over the long term.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

The futility of Plan B

Image Source: LinkedIn

Growing up in India, where inherent chaos makes sure most things don’t go according to plan, I got organically trained to always have a Plan B. The classic fallback option – the bylane you take when the main road is clogged because a minister is scheduled to pass through, the backup college seat you block in case you ranked low in the entrance exam for your top preference, or the autorickshaw you hail when the car refuses to start.

Look, I get it! Now that I am a father to 2 boys, I see the instinct parents have to ensure their children are tangibly & emotionally “safe” in all situations. So, I can appreciate why my middle-class upbringing was designed this way. To top it up, my technical education & early analytical jobs further pushed me into the world of scenario analysis & fail-safes.

Down the road, as I entered the risky world of startups, I naturally brought this instinct with me. While building, operating & investing in high-risk-high-reward endeavors, my animal brain would always push me to have a Plan B in my backpocket:

  • If this startup doesn’t work, I can always go back to Company X.
  • What if this investment fails? Let me spread my resources & take a smaller bet.
  • If I don’t like living in Country Y, I can always go back to India.

A few years into taking these asymmetric bets (presumably backed by Plan Bs), I expectedly started encountering failures, both big & small, one after another. They ranged everything from major projects going South & unforeseen external risks coming to the party to unexpected company restructurings & gross misjudgment of certain people’s skills & intent.

During a recent introspection of these adverse experiences, something interesting jumped out – every time I attempted to call on a Plan B for a specific situation, more often than not, it wasn’t really there. In some cases, the “backup” companies had changed their strategy & weren’t a fit anymore. In others, I had grown in a different direction & going to a fall-back option would be a negative step. Many times, people I was relying on to help materialize a certain Plan B had either fallen out of touch, were themselves dealing with adversity, or had changed their context & therefore, relevance.

So this was my lightbulb moment that inspired this post – in high-risk-high-reward situations, Plan Bs are….fictitious. The very nature of extremely risky situations is that they take you in unpredictable directions, change your context in unimaginable ways & leave you with baggage that’s hard to foresee. And all this happens in parallel to a rapidly-changing external environment that in most cases, becomes increasingly incongruent with your endeavor (most asymmetric projects are by definition, contrarian in relation to established rules of the game that the majority operates by).

This complex system renders even the most thought-through Plan Bs useless. Given asymmetric bets are driven by power laws (a few will drive a majority of the total outcome) & compounding (need a long enough timeline for ideas to mature, which is when outcomes start growing exponentially), positioning yourself to be on the right side of these rules requires going all-in for a significant period of time.

While having a Plan B provides the initial psychological space to initiate a risk, in my experience, it unfortunately also creates a mental mechanism to cop out of it, & even worse, often doesn’t provide the safe landing space it initially promised.

Going forward, my aim is to ditch the “Plan B” mindset in all asymmetric bets. A fall-back instinct comes from a place of fear, and while controlled fear can be a useful tool to drive alertness & urgency, it becomes adverse when acting as a roadblock to going all-in & persevering on a thoughtfully-chosen path.

It’s important to add here that while ditching the Plan B outlook, I will still proactively focus on avoiding the Risk of Ruin at an overall life level. Asymmetric bets require multiple shots at the goal & therefore, safeguarding the ability to keep playing is paramount.

On a related note, a mental heuristic I have recently started using while making asymmetric decisions I am 50-50 on – “which option is the fear side of my brain asking me to choose?”. In most cases, I then lean towards the other option!

I have found the following quote by Swami Vivekananda to be hugely inspiring in driving this mental transformation:

Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life – think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success.

Swami Vivekananda

As you consider this approach, I want to leave you with this outstanding scene from Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. As a frustrated Bruce Wayne is trying to catch his breath after yet another failed attempt at climbing out of the pit (he was using a rope each time), an old & wise prisoner gives him the mantra for successfully making the climb:

You do not fear death. You think this makes you strong. It makes you weak.

How can you move faster than possible, fight longer than possible, without the most powerful impulse of experience – the fear of death!

Make the climb…as the child did. Without a rope!

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

Building…one at a time

I recently tweeted a really interesting insight I heard from Mike Maples, Jr of Floodgate at a recent Draper University closed-door event:

This is so true, and a common mistake that founders & product leaders make while building new products. Looking back on my own startup, while I rigorously tried to execute Paul Graham’s “Do things that don’t scale” philosophy, I still created unreasonable expectations in my own head around user growth for each MVP iteration. This was probably due to the baggage I was carrying from my previous experience of working at large companies like Alibaba, where numbers were talked about in Millions & sometimes, Billions.

When the absolute user numbers weren’t met, my morale as a founder would get hit with each iteration. In hindsight, hitting numbers shouldn’t have been the goal at all. The ideal 0-to-1 mindset is like that of a scientist, with curiosity being the core driving emotion, backed by an iterative product development approach. The target outcome of this approach should be to gather insights that help refine the hypothesis.

Similar to how scientists drive their research process one experiment at a time, I have realized that building any new product or service from grounds-up requires moving one “unit” at a time. It’s up to you to decide what that unit should be – acquisition, activation, frequency of use, revenue or even just getting qualitative feedback!

In a scientific process, more than just the number of experiments run, what’s important is taking the learning from each experiment & applying it to the next one so it becomes better than the first.

Similarly, a good approach to building anything new is to delight one person at a time. This automatically focuses the building process & anchors it on an actual customer, thus making it easier to ship something that solves a monetizable problem for someone in the real world. Trust me, this is a non-trivial hurdle that many startup teams are unable to cross.

The 0-to-1 stage can be highly fuzzy but breaking it down into one unit at a time helps give more clarity to the team around the exact short-term goals.

The most profitable way for a product to grow is via word-of-mouth. The above approach naturally optimizes for it. And once the testimonials & organic growth start kicking in, traction compounds with minimal incremental effort.

Of course, the key to executing this building approach well is patience. Again, think of a scientist. A larger research budget or more headcount can’t necessarily speed up a breakthrough. Similarly, building one unit at a time requires a small team committed to iterating over a long enough timeline for customer compounding to kick in. A lean & capital-efficient operating model is a requirement of this approach as a long runway significantly improves the odds of success.

Learning from my mistakes as a founder, as I have now started working towards regularly putting useful startup & investing content out there, I am consciously following the approach of publishing & learning one unit of content at a time – blog post, Twitter thread, LinkedIn post etc.

Same for my angel investing, wherein I am trying to help each founder, co-investor & startup employee I meet, one week at a time, with whatever resources I have – network, expertise, capital etc.

This approach is helping me to first put the core enablers of my venture investing craft in place that then, hopefully, self-compound. Therefore, I feel much better this time about hitting my long-term goals.

PS: on a similar note, I really like this post by a16z on how creators only need 100 true fans to build a business. Whether this number is 100 or 1,000 is less important. The real insight is that even a small number of dedicated fans are needle-moving.

Also, in case you are interested in other similar startup insights shared by Mike Maples at the DraperU event I referred to earlier, check out my Twitter thread on it.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

Using the Focus Canvas to Cut Burn

As the fundraising environment continues to get harder in 2023, founders & investors are deep into rationalizing business plans & finding ways to cut burn. The first temptation is to follow what I call an “excel sheet” approach – starting with the largest expense items without enough strategic thinking around the revised set of goals, business constraints in this new environment, what is working well right now, & how capital should be most efficiently allocated going-forward.

As opposed to big companies, startups operate with a finite runway, trying to address significant customer problems that remain unaddressed by large incumbents. This requires constant innovation – essentially doing hard, non-consensus things across the stack, everything from technology & design to customer experience & business model, that incumbents aren’t doing.

While big companies can afford to be relatively unscientific in cutting costs & still tide through tough macros with the help of their existing PMF, startups unfortunately, have no option but to play offense at all times in order to continue innovating & thereby, give themselves a chance to survive & succeed. In financial terms, this implies investing incremental $$ into innovation that drives more revenue (& profit), which is what will ultimately save a startup, not investor cash sitting in the bank.

So how should founders think about playing offense while being capital-constrained? I would like to propose a thinking tool called the “Focus Canvas“:

  • As a first step, rather than focusing on P&L line items, break down your business into specific buckets. These could include customer segments (eg. Individual, SMB, Enterprise etc.), product lines (eg. shrink-wrapped, custom deployment, pure services etc.), platforms (eg. desktop app, iOS, Android, browser extensions etc.), distribution channels (eg. self-serve, inside sales, direct sales, channel partners etc.), geographies (eg. US, EU, India etc.), teams by function/ type (eg. engg., product, design, sales, marketing, offshore contractors, agencies etc.) & other buckets that are relevant for your business.
  • Arrange all the relevant buckets & their constituent elements on a single page. This is your “Focus Canvas“.
  • On the top-left corner, list the most updated business goals for this year that all stakeholders in the company have aligned on. These could be things like “hit $1Mn ARR”, “show x% retention”, “start fundraising in Q4” etc.
  • On the top-right corner, list all the business constraints you expect to face this year. These could be things like “12 months runway left”, “only 2 backend engineers”, “sales cycle taking 6+ months to close” etc.
  • Now, as you are looking at this Focus Canvas, try and answer the question “what is working well right now?”*. You need to define “working well” for each bucket as per your specific context, also taking into account the above goals & constraints. It could be driven by one or more of revenue growth, most profitable, highest ROI, generating the most valuable feedback, creating the most differentiation, highest team productivity etc. *Note: this step is well-suited for a team workshop/ brainstorming session.
  • The most important step – for each bucket, put a ✅ in front of the element(s) you believe is your best bet to achieve this year’s business goals while navigating expected constraints. Then, ❌ out all other elements in the bucket. This is where ruthless focus is extremely important for the Canvas to do its job well – ideally, force yourself to ✅ only your #1 focus element. In the case of most startups, that’s probably all you can afford to execute anyway.
  • Finally, take the ✅ element from each bucket & weave them into a simple, 1-2 paragraph Focus Narrative. An example to illustrate this – “In 2023, we will focus on the Enterprise customer segment & offer them the standard product suite with a billable custom deployment services wrapper. The product roadmap will focus on the desktop app. We will double down on the internal sales model for distribution, with founders pitching in for strategic logos. To increase our team’s efficiency, we will significantly reduce contractor headcount & re-allocate them to full-time hires in engineering & internal sales.”

This Focus Canvas now provides a clear & strategic view of opportunities to both cut burn & re-allocate resources, while staying on track to achieve business goals & making progress toward PMF. The Focus Narrative can be used to socialize the going-forward strategy across teams in an easy-to-remember way. If used well (read: with ruthless focus), this approach can help startups in playing offense even in a tough economic environment.

PS: sharing a Focus Canvas template that you can use as a starting point. Feel free to download a copy & modify it as per your requirements.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

Ten big ideas for 2023

2022 definitely felt like the end of an era. A decade-long party for US tech, fueled by low-interest rates -> increased availability of risk capital -> price inflation across asset classes.

The last chapter of this post-GFC era was perhaps the craziest – an unprecedented pandemic -> widespread lockdowns -> more fiscal stimulus -> injecting more air into already inflated asset bubbles.

With inflation crossing 7%, the Fed finally started increasing interest rates last year and is expected to continue quantitative tightening over the next few quarters. Public market valuations expectedly turned south (valuations are based on DCF, so as discount rates go up, valuations go down), with tech growth stocks correcting by as much as 80-90%.

The following dynamics are currently at play:

  • Large tech: shrinking macro-demand + adverse public markets -> pressure on companies to reduce costs to bring them in line with lower growth projections -> drastic cost-cutting measures, including major layoffs.
  • Venture Investors: public market corrections -> LPs cut back on venture allocations + downward revision of expected returns on exit -> venture activity slows down + any deals that happen, happen at much lower valuations given new public market comps.
  • Startups: less capital available + higher bar in private markets -> startups need to cut costs to survive -> layoffs in high-cost/ non-core functions + pause hiring unless absolutely essential.

2023 appears to be the “year of transition”, as both the overall macroeconomic cycle, as well as the technology sector within it, move into a new paradigm. I see the following ten big ideas for 2023:

  1. Leaner-and-meaner big tech

For anyone working in tech over the last decade, we have witnessed first-hand the level of entitlement & cultural complacency that has grown within large tech companies like Google & Meta. With more challenging times ahead, I expect large tech companies to take drastic steps towards re-wiring their cultures & operating models. Layoffs are just one piece of the puzzle – expect significant changes to compensation policies, KPI/ OKR philosophies, org. structures, functional locations, work-from-home policies, contractor hiring, operating routines etc., all with the aim to make execution more efficient.

Founder-led companies (eg. Meta, Salesforce, Shopify, Coinbase etc.) will take quicker & braver calls to re-invent themselves, compared to those run by professional management teams (eg. Google). In the latter case, I expect shareholders to put considerable pressure on these professional CEOs to take corrective measures. In fact, I won’t be surprised if some of the big tech CEOs get unexpectedly replaced as many of them come across as peacetime CEOs who will struggle in wartime.

2. Capital efficiency over growth for startups

The last decade in tech startups was all about growth. This year, expect investing thesis & operating models to decisively shift towards capital efficiency. Mirroring the demands for margin improvement by public markets, I expect private market investors to significantly raise their expectations on operating efficiency.

Founders will have to react fast and in several cases, give a 1800 turn to their culture & business models. A silver lining – founders who were heads-down amidst the craziness of 2020-21, building their companies in a capital-efficient way, will have an enviable opportunity (& deservedly so!) to play offense both with customers & investors.

3. Bay Area bounces back

Remote work boomed during the pandemic, as tech companies grew at unprecedented rates. However, we saw signs of a comeback-to-office across both big companies & startups last year. With current headwinds, I expect factors like teams getting together to drive execution & in-person networking to become increasingly important.

With rampant layoffs, tech professionals will also feel more insecure & would need more access & optionality to get their careers back on track. All this bodes well for the Bay Area – I expect significant migration to the region, especially for people in their 20s to mid-30s. In terms of the sheer depth of the tech ecosystem, the Bay Area remains unparalleled. As emerging areas like AI, health-tech & EVs gain strength, they will provide even more reasons for talent to be physically here.

4. “De-angelification” of the startup ecosystem

Amidst the post-pandemic investing frenzy, liquidity-rich, over-optimistic, FOMO-driven tech professionals started dabbling in angel investing. Becoming an angel in a “hot deal” became a status symbol, & rapid paper-markups made everyone feel like a winner.

A majority of newbie angels from this vintage neither understand the nuances of this asset class nor have the depth of resources to play the game effectively over the long term.

As more startups start shutting down this year, combined with layoffs & decreasing compensations courtesy dwindling value of RSUs, I expect a massive churn in 2020-21 vintage angels. In my experience, tourist angels typically drop out of the game around the 4-6 deals/ 24 months mark, as they see portfolio companies starting to shut down & their hard-earned money vaporizing into thin air.

5. More pain in Crypto

If you thought 2022 was brutal for Crypto, brace yourself! FTX implosion is only the beginning of a much-needed cleanup in the space. I expect many more tokens to go to zero, projects to shut down & low-conviction talent to move out. Given the scale of the FTX fraud, am expecting even more regulatory oversight & ramifications for the overall sector this year.

Personally, I do believe there is a kernel of truth in the Web3 opportunity. The faster this cleanup happens, the sooner the next chapter can begin & we can make tangible progress towards discovering its real-world use cases.

On BTC and ETH, I expect both to remain flat at best, & significantly down from current levels in the bear case.

6. The FOMO shifts to AI

Whenever there is too much consensus around a trend or an asset class, I get worried! It was clean-tech pre-GFC, then Blockchain & Crypto pre-pandemic, moving to Web3 & future-of-work post-pandemic. Based on my Twitter feed, I can safely say that with the rise of OpenAI & launch of ChatGPT, the FOMO has now shifted from Web3 to AI. I am expecting the space to see a lot of hype, investor interest & startups being launched in 2023.

Studying how the previous FOMO waves evolved gives a fair understanding of what to expect – those without first-principles conviction & a long-term strategy are more likely to get their hands burned. Those who were anyway committed to the space & were quietly building behind the scenes over the last few years stand to disproportionately benefit from the increased availability of risk capital & talent.

7. The return of “moats” (& rise of deeptech)

As the perpetual-growth era of software ends, I expect the question around “moats” to re-appear in the diligence checklist of investors. The lifecycle of companies like Netflix & Robinhood has clearly shown how hard it is to have a sustainable competitive advantage in tech (one reason why Warren Buffet stays away from investing in it!).

As the likelihood of purely growth-driven exits goes down, I expect venture investors to start looking at deeptech verticals with inherent moats much more seriously. These include space-tech, health-tech (including lifesciences), energy, climate etc.

Each of the above markets seems to be getting unlocked in its own unique way & while these companies can be more capital-intensive & have higher technical risk compared to say SaaS or Social, the resulting market leaders have much more defensible competitive positions & hence command healthy valuation multiples.

8. EVs taking over the transportation stack

EVs are seeing major progress on both the supply & demand side. On the supply side, most major auto companies have an EV product in the market, with use cases evolving from urban sedans to SUVs, pickup trucks & now, even semi-trucks.

On the demand side, record-high gasoline prices have acted as a key unlock. This is visible in the rising hybridization of the latest gasoline car models. With non-Tesla EV products rapidly expanding, consumers have more choices across use cases & price points. I wrote a post a few months back on how I warmed up to EVs & Tesla, in particular. I expect EV penetration to have significant growth momentum this year.

9. Digitization of mainstream healthcare

A positive side-effect of the pandemic has been consumers getting increasingly comfortable with digitally-delivered healthcare services. In my case, interacting with healthcare providers over Zoom and accessing services such as Carbon Health & One Medical via their apps (including getting advice via chat) has really opened my eyes to its value. Even beyond that, I work-out with my trainer via video & our family nutritionist is in India with all interactions happening via Whatsapp.

I expect the overall healthcare stack, including mainstream services, to digitize at an even faster rate in the coming year. These tech platforms will also open up opportunities for niche services to exist eg. virtual monitoring & consultations for chronic patients, pre & post-natal advice, nutrition guidance etc.

10. India as a global greenshoot

Amidst an unstable China, weakening EU, war-torn Russia, one-dimensional Middle East, fiscally-unstable LatAm & fragmented Africa, India appears to be a solid greenshoot both geo-politically & economically. A stable & reformist govt. has worked hard to put together core growth pillars over the last 8 years – from building physical infrastructure & a national digital payments network to ensuring economic development at the grassroots & supporting tech startup activity in the country. India is poised to now reap the dividends of all this hard work, and similar to China, grow its per-capita income from ~$2k at present to ~$10k over the next 20 years, all in a democratic environment.

India’s tech ecosystem has also come of age in the last 5 years. The mega question of “can exits of venture-backed companies happen in India?” has been progressively answered, beginning with the acquisition of Flipkart by Walmart, followed by IPOs of consumer companies like Paytm, Nykaa & Zomato in domestic public markets, & the IPO of Freshworks in the from-India SaaS space on Nasdaq. There is a growing pool of startup talent, courtesy of a decade-long Mobile & software wave, which will fuel the country’s tech ecosystem over the next decade.

The above ideas are making me super-excited for 2023, both as an angel investor & operator. After a 2.5-year hiatus, I returned to angel investing in 2022, doing 3 deals in Q4. With the turning cycle & above ideas as a backdrop, my goal is to make 2023 my most active year yet as an angel, while also keeping a high bar on quality. Excited to collaborate with all founders, angels, VCs & operators out there 👊🏽

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.

An angel’s struggle with entry valuations

Recently, I was in a shareholder’s meeting of a portfolio company. It has been a gut-wrenching last 3 years for the leadership. Unfortunately, the company’s market pretty much shut down during Covid. Significant liabilities built up & the team saw significant churn. To survive, the company had to raise a bridge at a major haircut.

During the meeting, the management team walked us through their journey of turning the business around from this dire situation. After the lockdown was over, customer demand got re-ignited. The company drastically cut costs, improved operating metrics to get revenue back on track, re-negotiated long-term vendor contracts, and cleared-off short-term liabilities, all while retaining the core manpower, many of whom had to take salary cuts.

As a result, the company is now PBT-profitable & growing through internal accruals. Btw this turnaround was achieved on a ~$13Mn revenue base. As an operator & ex-founder, I was blown away by this execution story & the team’s grit.

But then, I put my investor’s hat on – despite all this progress, early investors are deeply out-of-money & are likely to remain so for a while. During 2017-19, the company raised equity at aggressive valuations that were misaligned with both the maturity of the business as well as the underlying multiples the sector trades at. In boom times, startups get valued at hyper-growth tech multiples. However, as soon as the cycle resets, follow-on investors revert to valuing them on realistic sectoral comps.

The good news is, courtesy of the awesome restructuring efforts, the business is on a profitable growth path. But given the extent of divergence between our entry valuations & current market comps, it’s going to be a long road toward generating healthy returns for early investors. And even if we get there, the sheer time taken will negatively impact IRRs.

As an angel, this is the part I really struggle to get my head around – how important is the entry price? Bill Gurley says in this 20VC podcast with Harry Stebbings – “the market sets the price on a deal-by-deal basis but as an investor, you have to keep an eye out for the price you are paying at a portfolio level”. This becomes especially hard for angels, who typically have to adhere to the price set either by the founder (SAFEs) or an institutional lead. In this era of fragmented checks via syndicates, SPVs & RUVs, I frequently see valuations that aren’t correlated to the underlying risk in the business & smaller check investors unable to push back. Ultimately, everyone ends up toeing the line.

As an investor, I always have the option of not participating in a highly-priced round. But then enters the other side of the coin – power law ensures very few companies drive a majority of venture returns. Therefore, angel investing is the game of accessing the “best” companies, which often requires paying up to get in. An argument frequently made is “if the company ends up as an outlier, it doesn’t matter what price you got in at”. I get this line of thinking but an “outlier return” is very contextual. Eg. a 10x return potential over a 5-7 year period is very solid for an angel, though might not meet the deal hurdle for a large fund. There are cases in my own portfolio wherein early angels are sitting on a 5-10x unrealized return because we entered at sub-$10Mn valuations and frankly, the likelihood of a startup hitting a $50-100Mn valuation is significantly higher than becoming a unicorn.

Over a 20+ angel portfolio built over 8+ years, I still struggle with thinking about entry valuations the right way. Presently, am taking it deal-by-deal with the guiding North Star of discovering & backing the best founders I can find, while also accepting the reality that angels will usually be price-takers that are prone to macro sentiments & the whims of lead investors. As Bill Gurley advises, maintaining perspective & discipline around portfolio-wide avg. entry price seems to be a smart way to play a balanced game.

Subscribe

to my weekly newsletter where in addition to my long-form posts, I will also share a weekly recap of all my social posts & writings, what I loved to read & watch that week + other useful insights & analysis exclusively for my subscribers.