Author Archive for Arun Natarajan

New Seed Funds: Right time, Right Place, Right Model

On Monday (Dec 19), I attended the soft launch of Mentor Partners, a unique technology-focused seed fund, in Bangalore. The firm plans to initially invest $1 million each in 10 product-focused companies in the IT and telecom space: around $500,000 as seed investment or “bridge loan” and the remaining as part of the first round investment along with other Venture Capital firms.

With two partners on the ground in Bangalore (Ravi Narayan who earlier co-founded Nextone Communications in the US and V.Prabhakar, a co-founder of Bangalore-based software testing services firm RelQ), Mentor Partners will help its investee companies get access to top companies in India, the US and other markets via its about 35 other members in its network. The network includes those who are either operating managers (like Vish Narayanan, Head of Telecom Operations at General Motors in Chicago) or “been there, done that” entrepreneurs (like Rosen Sharma who has founded several start-ups like Solidcore, VxTreme, Ensim, Stratum8 and Green Border).

While the number of entrepreneurs with good products ideas is growing rapidly in Bangalore and other cities, the bane of genuine early-stage investments in recent years has been lack of ability and willingness on the part of VCs to provide seed capital (a typical VC firm cannot invest less than $3 million) and more importantly, play a hands-on role in growing start-ups.

Mentor Partners plans to raise its corpus from high-net worth individuals and Silicon Valley venture firms. (Several Sand Hill Road firms have recently made similar investments into local VC firms in China. There are several reasons why it makes sense for Silicon Valley firms to make such indirect investments-despite the issues it create with respect to “double carry fees” for their own investors. For instance, they don’t have to prematurely invest in setting up a full-time team and office in these developing markets. Plus, they get proprietary deal flow for making follow-on investments.)

A key source of strength for Mentor Partners is that there are enough follow-on investors (including some two dozen Silicon Valley VC firms and strategic investors either already on the ground or very keen to invest in India) who can invest $3 million or more into their portfolio companies - when they are ready for it. Plus, as B.D.Goel, a member of the Mentor Partners network, points out, “success” for such a seed fund would be in validating the business models of their investee companies and helping them access name-brand investors as part of the first round. Mentor Partners will then rely on the follow on investors to take its investee companies to the next level, rather than having to hand-hold companies all the way to an exit. For entrepreneurs too, this is much better than having a larger fund invest $1-3 million when their products are still being built and then, just when they seem to be getting their marketing act together, start pushing towards a premature exit.

Mentor Partners’ model-including its relatively small fund size and its unique partner network-is a welcome addition to the Startup-VC ecosystem in India. What’s even better is that there are more similar seed funds that are either up and running or being raised. While Bangalore has seen the launch of the $3 million Erasmic Incubation Fund, Mumbai-based angel investor Mahesh Murthy has teamed up with Pravin Gandhi (a co-founder of Infinity Venture) to raise a $10 million fund to be called, well, “Seed Fund”.

Here’s hoping that these seed funds-which are filling an increasingly obvious and large gap in the eco-system-will close their funds quickly and invest in creating some very exciting technology companies out of India in 2006.

Arun Natarajan is the Founder of Venture Intelligence India, which tracks venture capital activity in India and Indian-founded companies worldwide. View sample issues of Venture Intelligence India newsletters and reports.

Paul Graham and the debate on founder sales

Venture Capitalists don’t like deals where their money is used to buy the shares owned by founders and other early investors. They like their money to go “into building the company” - ie, towards hiring people, building a product, etc. Unless, that is, they are desparate to get in on the deal.

In August, The New York Times had a report on how such “founder sales” deals were becoming more common in the US. Companies like eHarmony, Webroot Software, Fastclick, etc., have witnessed the founders “using venture deals to cash out some of their equity without the bother of a public offering or an acquisition”. Woodside Fund partner Thomas Shields pointed out in the article that a founder is typically “stock rich but cash poor”. Shields feels such a situation is actually bad for the company as a whole since such a founder “might be overly conservative in his or her business decisions for fear of losing everything.” “If you can give these guys a little bit of liquidity so they’re comfortable taking more risk, but not so much that they’re not hungry anymore, then it can be a very good thing.”

In response to the NYT article in August 2005, I had said the following on my blog:

What Shields says makes a lot of sense. So much so that I think it might be a good idea for VCs to actually insist on “limited founder sales” when they invest in a company. I think this will help reduce the all-too-famailiar clashes between founders and their VC backers post the initial honeymoon period. Letting the founders take “a little bit off the table” reduces their risk in doing what VCs want all their investee companies to do: grow faster.

Now, in a new essay titled “The Venture Capital squeeze”, Paul Graham - a co-founder of ViaWeb (acquired by Yahoo for $50 million) - warns VCs that “if (they) are frightened at the idea of letting founders partially cash out, let me tell them something still more frightening: you are now competing directly with Google.” Click Here to read Graham’s very interesting article that is attracting a lot of attention.

Back in the Indian context, M&As have remained the main source of exits for VCs here for a long time. While Google and Yahoo! may not be acquiring too many companies in India, we are witnessing global tech majors - from Flextronics and to IBM - becoming more active acquirers here. So, would we start witnessing more founder sales in Indian VC deals as well? While I’m convinced it would be a good trend, the question is whether the demand for early-stage investments too high (compared to supply), for local VCs to “allow” this?

Debate on the investment “sweet spot”

Anand Sridharan of Bessemer Venture Partners-India and Roshan D’Silva, Managing Partner of Middle East technology incubator One Nine Three (and co-founder of IIT-Bombay incubatee MyZus Infotech), have an interesting debate going on Anand’s blog on whether late-stage, non-tech investments will score over early stage tech focused investments.

Some Extracts:

Roshan:

India needs early stage capital today. The market is large and is ideal for an investor who can cherry pick the companies who he can back. I see no reason to sacrifice returns and join the crowd….I just feel there is more money to be made in the long run by building a very traditional Silicon Valley-ish Venture Capital firm investing in india.

Anand:

Where is the actual investment opportunity, specific to the Indian market? Non-tech, growth capital opportunities outnumber tech, venture capital opportunities by an order of magnitude. Possibly even higher, if you apply a quality filter. Indian IP/tech startup scene is fast improving, but is still a few years away from critical mass.

So, what am I saying. There is a ’sweet spot’ in not-so-large companies requiring expansion capital to scale up a proven business model in non-tech sectors. As of now, this spot is sweeter than early-stage tech.