Dr. Jekyll Investor & Mr. Hyde Manager

One of the great many chasms that every single PE manager worth his salt has to go through is to figure out the delicate balance between the role of an investor and a manager without becoming disruptive.




How deep does one dive in ? How strong does the understanding of the organizational DNA have to be ? How strong should the technical/domain knowledge be ? For a relationship to blossom into one based on deep trust and commitment, the PE investor needs to move beyond the role of an investor who can bring in generic perspectives and become a trusted confidante; Being a trusted confidante automatically means ability to add value to the technicalities of the business/organization as also to the "mental orientation" of the promoter. May be the investment manager needs to ask himself if he can hold fort should the promoter vanish for 6 months which would mean answering the following questions for oneself:

• Do I understand the business in granular detail ? Sales structure, organization, productivity, sales cycles, supply chain, mark-ups, commercials, quality issues, customer expectations
  
• Do I understand the organizational DNA ? Is it driven by individuals or teams ? What are the motivation levels amongst lower rung employees ? How strong are the company's processes and systems when compared to its peers ?
• How is the market place evolving ? What are competitors doing that we are'nt ? What stage of the curve is the industry going through- early growth, heavy competition, consolidation or mature growth ? How well prepared are we for the next phase ?
  

An investor's role as a manager is like what someone said " it is not that you would, but you could". It is my firm belief that as one starts thinking about these, the value addition on business specifics tends to flow automatically strengthening the relationship that exists. Contrary to popular belief, I tend to believe that being an investor and a manager are not two different roles at different points of time. A good investor needs have a realistic managerial perspective and a strong manager needs to understand the way an investor sees things - you may be running the most salient business on earth, but if you cannot carry along your investors with you, it does not mean much.

~Varadha
(varadha.r1@gmail.com)

India's demographic dividend - a mirage ?!

Reading this wonderful article in the mint on the lack of challenges in a typical middle-class kids' life was quite an eye opener to the risk in India's much anticipated demographic dividend. It is certainly something most of us who spent our childhood in the pre-liberalization era can relate to - cycle as the only known mode of transport, one channel on TV, no computer, no video games, no internet, no mobiles, no apartments and no playing indoor games.

Kids of this age are getting increasingly isolated and cushioned at the same society from the realities of the society. My friend who runs a pre-school at Gurgaon was commenting about how a lot many kids in cities have never seen the outside except through the window of an air conditioned car. This might be great news for kids' TV channels, makers of video games and eatables but is not great news for the society (no, no "no sour grapes" syndrome here- coming from someone from the previous generation). I am now starting to find kids of house-maids and autorickshaw drivers to be much smarter on the street - for eg., buying vegetables, running errands, managing minor tussles on the street or for that matter even helping out their parents by earning a buck or two.



Every country at some point of time went through this stage of increasing luxury and isolation of children (Nordic countries and US in the 1970s) and it has remarkable repercussions like gun/drug/LSD culture, increasing suicides, violence. A spotless scrubbing of all grey/dark zones of life leads to an aimless drifting with most of them taking to "taboos" simply because those they are the only challenges for them to surmount.

Of course, it is just as likely that a few of these guys will turn out to be the Bill Gates-es and Michael Phelps-es, provided they have their value systems in place. Of course, that is contingent on parents and the time and effort they spend instilling basic values in place and giving kids a check of the societal realities. I am no doomsayer, but it is'nt going to be a rollercoaster as most of us imagine it to be.

~Varadha
(varadha.r1@gmail.com)

Right fund size ?!

This interesting article from KPMG that talks about the PE industry in India raises a pertinent question. What is the right fund size that marries the market opportunities with the economics of running a fund ? Seems like there is a difference between the perception of LPs and GPs (page 5). If 30% of the LPs want a small fund ($ 100-200 mn) 35% of the LPs want a fund that is in the region of ($ 200-500 mn) (vis-a-vis 20% and 35% for GP, it sure is an interesting combination.


I guess the question that LPs are asking themselves really is that in PPP terms a $ 200 mn fund in India would be the equivalent of a $ 1 bn fund in US (which pre-2007 was fairly common place), a significant size even the world's largest economy, especially if you are focussed on "classical private equity" (unpolished, unlisted companies). That means a $ 100 mn deal size assuming a portfolio of 8-10 companies (which means company revenues of anywhere from $ 50 -250 mn and PAT of $ 20-30 mn) - not pushover numbers in any case.


Dissecting the onion another way, the micro fund category (sub $ 100 mn) seems grossly under represented, given the fact that this is the sweetest spot in terms of risk-reward (get into companies with minimal concept risk but significant execution risk). However, it seems that the jury thinks it is unviable given the bandwith issues involved in managing the portfolio (I think this is an area that will get changed along the lines of the Silicon Valley model - where you could have a roster of operating partners that devote a part of their time to grooming companies thereby reducing the burden on the fund management team).

Given the current circumstances, I would think the ideal size for an economy like India (which is far more broad based, driven primarily by entrepreneurs, not the Government and hence has a larger range of opportunities) ought to be in the region of $ 200-300 mn.- if one were to marry the overheads of fund management with the opportunities available in the market). Of course, this will also depend on the style of investing (preference of size of stake, operational involvement).

Thoughts, any one ?

~Varadha