Skip to main content


Changing terms of engagement
Twenty-two years ago when I resigned from employment with an investment bank to set up IMA, I was stubbornly anxious about profits and cash flows. With limited funding, I wasn’t really blessed with choices. Perhaps I lacked vision; perhaps the environment all those years ago did not encourage me to think scale and a mind-set of frugality possibly impeded the growth and evolution of my company. But it also ensured that we were profitable fairly quickly. Things have come a long way since and the approach of start-ups is palpably different now.
Today, young entrepreneurs commonly focus their attention on the creation of a product and given the possibility of scaling its offering, seek to monetise their effort through a sale or divestment of stock rather than churn out profits. They sometimes have exaggerated assumptions about what they can create, rather than the odds of making profits or even generating positive cash flows. Glory is sought in the conception of something that has a large social or consumer impact with little relation to profitability. Products are backed by slick technology and even offer a life enriching experience. Growth, scale and market share constitute the basic terms of engagement; profits are rarely in the initial consideration. In all of this start-ups occasionally forget the old rules of business – economies of scale do not create a business, they only optimise it.
But things have begun to change, with investors becoming more demanding on cash flows. They have condensed previously generous timeframes on expected returns. A few months ago PepperTap a grocery delivery service shut down its operations in six cities including Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, laying off 400 delivery workers. A rival offering by Grofers earlier sealed doors in nine cities, all in a bid to conserve cash. Possibly persuaded by investors, these firms may now focus harder on financial metrics, redesign their products and ensure profitability before searching for scale.
The rush of funding seems to be ebbing. Unlike in previous years when investment transactions were sealed in a matter of weeks, investors now seem more circumspect and ask the obvious questions. However, that is not to say that funding for start-ups has evaporated. According to a report by InnoVen Capital, 130 Indian start-ups are expected to raise USD 700 million in the course of this year.  But entrepreneurs have to work harder in refining their business models and can no longer expect lofty valuations. Interestingly, the report also alluded to the fact that the appetite for growth capital – involving sums of USD 25 million – is limited, as venture funds prod their portfolio companies towards a path of profitability. In 2015, USD 16 billion was poured into the start-up ecosystem but going forward both valuations and cheque sizes may be greatly reduced. The focus is going beyond consumer and social impact to fundamentals and profitability.
In the longer term the cycle of booms and busts will continue as greed and rationality repeatedly replace each other as the domineering force amongst investors. But start-ups are here to stay. They are now critical contributors to economic growth, employment creation and perhaps above all in their ability to enrich our lives. They are often led by people of vision with an aptitude for technology who churn out clever offerings. Had I been blessed with some of these traits, IMA might for better or worse have been in an altogether different business. Still, as in all things, it must be about the right balance.


Popular posts from this blog

Uday: a federalist success story

At our 21 st Annual CEO Roundtable in Thimphu last week, there was spirited debate over the performance of the current administration. A participant suggested that the Ujjwal Discom Assurance Yojana (Uday), a scheme to reform India’s downstream power sector, for all its fanfare was actually a failure of sorts and that India’s renewable energy programme, specifically on solar energy, was lacking on many counts. Whilst it was my intuitive belief that both claims were unsympathetic, I thought it would perhaps be in order to examine the facts in detail and subsequently provide an assessment. This paper, accordingly, presents an analysis of the first of the two issues – the Uday programme. The second will be addressed in a subsequent piece. The electricity distribution crisis: background Electricity distribution has been disastrously managed over the last three decades and in 2015 was on the verge of absolute collapse. Under-priced power, operational inefficiency, broken equip

The Employment Conundrum

Over the last three months, I have had the opportunity of engaging with our clients across various forums and cities. What provided a platform for this interaction was my briefing on four critical initiatives that we believe will, if properly implemented, serve as game changers with a palpable impact on economic output. The question that consistently came up almost everywhere was on the perception of jobless growth and consequently, rising unemployment within India. This has possibly been based on recent press reports and television debates that consistently cite certain headline statistics. These suggest a fall in employment levels between 2011-12 and 2015-16 compared to vigorous growth in earlier years, since 2004-05. Even on the surface, this conclusion does not gel fittingly with other statistics. For instance, indirect tax collections and consumption expenditure, which are both proxies of aggregate spending and wellbeing, do not corroborate falling employment. Tax collections

All the Prime Minister's Men

The composition of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s cabinet would suggest a desire to resume the process of reforms, which had practically stalled during his somewhat uninspiring previous term. It is also indicative of a more assertive Congress Party within the larger coalition of the United Progressive Alliance. The Congress has retained key economic ministries and also taken control of other important ones that were previously with their allies. With Pranab Mukherjee at the Treasury, P Chidambaram at Home and AK Antony at Defence, three crucial departments appear to be in the most capable hands. Mr Mukherjee, possibly the senior most member of the Singh administration, has over the years served in various positions in the government. He was India’s Finance Minister between 1982 and 1984 in the Indira Gandhi cabinet and brings to the table considerable technical competence and robust political acumen. Disinvestment of state-owned enterprises; financial sector reform; the implementat