Conference Panel: Investing in India- The Maturation Process, whats next?

The amazing panel, drawing from PE, management consulting and IB firms emphasized that they are taking a long term view of the Indian market and are doing well thought out due diligence on deals to make the best decisions for the funds. Deals have been quite competitive and negotiated.

This approach raises a line of thought regarding the non-core (?) activities of a PE fund. Why am I calling them non-core? Well, most folks would say that the only core activity for GPs is to find good investments and fund them, the rest can go for a toss. Performance is the cornerstone of success. The "official" lore is that the high performing GPs do not really have to bother much about non-core activities.

This query on capital deployment and how much GPs think about it is still worth considering as it seems to be closely tied with fund raising. The response to the query by the GPs can be that they do not really care about capital deployment as they tap into their funds on an deal by deal basis. However, I am inclined to think the GPs have a sense of what the LPs are thinking of when LPs make investments in the PE funds. Sounds like business development, doesn't it?

Anyhow, non-core or otherwise, lets dig into some aspects of the PE business. How do the GPs:
1> Handle uneven deal flow?
2> Manage different relative risk levels across deals?
3> Manage different rates of returns on their deals?
4> Set LP expectations on deal flow and deal sizes, across business environments, while still keeping LPs on board?

What do you think?

From the LP point of view, How do LPs:
1> Manage cash (e.g. lack of predictability in drawdowns)?
2> Allocate capital, from the asset allocation policy and portfolio management point of view, between drawdowns, and for drawdowns?

What do you think?

The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource and I have been careful to protect panelist interests. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.

Keynote address: Vinod Dham, NEA- Indo-US Ventures

The amazing keynote by Vinod Dham has parallels with a keynote (different conference) by Alan Patricof, Managing Director, Greycroft, with respect to his experience in Venture Capital in Africa. Vinod was bullish about opportunities in India.

His talk raise a query. What is the difference in managing a $200 MM fund in Silicon Valley vs. a $200 MM fund in India?

On the dealmaking end:
1> Do you do more deals?
2> Do you invest in companies that are more late stage?
3> Do you invest in companies that can bring in and ramp up revenue pretty quickly?

From personal experience, Indian startups are able to keep costs pretty low.

On the investing end, what kind of support do you need to provide to startup leadership?

The Indian technology clusters- Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai- are not as mature as the Silicon Valley cluster.

What do you think?

The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.

Conference Panel: Fundraising Darwinism- Evolution of PE fundraising

Bruce Rosenblum, Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, tore into the re-emergence of SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) in the context of Private and Public PE companies. He pointed to two advantages PE firms would have over SPACs: diversification and GP incentives.

Given that there are many similarities between VC and PE fundraising, I was inclined to think that there was more to the comparison that what met the eye.
1> Was the PE firm structure an advantage?
2> Were the PE networks an advantage?
3> Were the PE firms able to gain efficiencies across investments that would not be possible in a different setting?

I queried Bruce for a comparison between Public PE firms and hypothetical mutual fund like SPAC aggregators (something I came up with to gain a better insight into his perspective). He had an interesting response.

What do you think?

Also, Francesco Guerrera, Financial Times, highlighted the paradox of PE firms going public. Bruce talked about KKR rasing $5 BN in public equity through Euronext at Amsterdam.

How do you think PE firms would deal with the q-on-q public market pressures?

The Usual Disclaimer: This is purely a knowledge sharing resource. Ethically, context is everything, and I will gladly retract anything that affects the parties mentioned. Call this my mini OpenCourseWare, if you will, where Open signifies life experiences.