We hear all the time about the amount of money that’s available to fund startups. For example, that private equity funds invested over $ 3.3 billion in just the first 3 calendar months of the current year. That VCs are always looking out for good deals as most of the plans they see merit little or no attention. That they invest in about 5-10 a year out of the 500-1000 business plans they get. And so on…But the truth is that a majority of deals that get funded are those that come through a referral or because the VC knows (of) the entrepreneurs; its natural because VCs don’t have the time to look at all the plans that they get to pick out the Rediff, Naukri, or Tejas Networks. Deals that come through some trusted source or through a trusted filtering process are therefore valued higher and rise to the top of the pile of business plans. It is therefore easy to see how many plans don’t get funded. And also how competitive the race to secure funding really is. Given this situation, what then makes a VC fund an unknown company started by an unheralded first-time entrepreneur? Imagine this situation: A first time entrepreneur in say, Bengaluru with degrees from Tier 2 educational institutions, average work experience in a regular job in a reasonably well-known company, but with no experience in building a business, no references you know or care for, and with no experience in building products or delivering productized services, sends you an email describing his vision of the way software will be used in the future.
Now ask yourself: Will you take that entrepreneur seriously? Will you invite the entrepreneur for discussions? Will you then fund the business to the tune of say, a couple of million dollars with no business plan? Answer honestly.
What then makes VCs fund companies started by such entrepreneurs? Sure, there is passion in the eyes of the entrepreneurs; sure, they have conviction and confidence; sure, they have researched the market and the business model; sure, they have a powerful business idea; sure, they know what they were talking about; But then so do many other entrepreneurs. Is it the element of chance? Is it that elusive thing called luck? Is divine intervention? What would have happened to such a startup if the founder had not had a chance meeting with the VC in a conference? After all, it was only because the founder met the VC at the conference was he able to talk about his plan, a plan that made the VC resonate with his business idea, right? Surely that meeting was due to luck, right? Especially, when other VCs had rejected the idea? Well, in our haste to qualify it as luck, we overlook the fact that the business idea and model had emerged out of research and market validation. Not from a pipe dream. We overlook the fact that the entrepreneurs at the startup were superbly prepared. And yes, they were in the right place at the right time. Luck,is what happens when opportunity meets with preparation. Without preparation, opportunities cannot be recognized and capitalized upon. Without opportunities, preparations can go abegging. So the next time somebody ascribes something to luck or chance, ask them if they were adequately prepared to exploit the opportunity.
It seems that “lucky†people constantly encounter such opportunities whereas unlucky people don’t. A 10 year research project that led to the 2003 book The Luck Factor by psychologist Richard Wiseman has revealed that “lucky†people generate their own “good fortune†through four basic principles that every entrepreneur will do good to internalize:
i) They are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities
ii) Make “lucky†decisions by listening to their intuition
iii) Create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations
iv) Adopt a resilient attitude that transforms “bad luck†into good
What do you think?
This article was first published in The Financial Express
- LUCK? RIGHT PLACE, RIGHT TIME? DIVINE INTERVENTION? - June 29, 2009
- Governance - June 29, 2009
- BUZZ WORD COMPLIANCE - June 25, 2009
Krish:
I am clearly baffled by your comments about being ribbed.
Any time you are in a public forum you will have more than one opinion, and it is important to understand where others are coming from. Unsure if ribbing is the right word.
Cheers!
Kamla
Hi Sanjay,
I thought the point about using references to be able to connect with a VC was an interesting topic to start with, but the latter part of the story went off-tangent into (what I thought was) a different topic – the “luck” factor.
The issue of VCs not willing or not having enough risk-appetite to fund a no-name and no-reference entrepreneur is, in my opinion, a sad / disappointing trend. Yes, putting money where one’s mouth is, is always a tough call and is never easy. As a self-funded ex-entrepreneur I know this very well. But given the profession they are in, I would imagine and expect that the “average VC” should have much higher risk appetite than the “average wealthy person”.
My concern (or rather, feedback) is about the fact that the Indian VC community needs to play a more responsible role in growing / promoting the entrepreneurial culture in the country (which is obviously still in a very nascent phase of growth). I have only seen a lot of talk and not much action on this account, from most “high profile” VCs in the country. While larger-than-life vision and dreams are discussed during conferences and panel discussions, when it comes to actually reviewing a startup / business plan, they go back to playing safe and going for those “tried & tested” factors which will (supposedly) ensure success.
Just to clarify – These issues are not directed at you specifically, Sanjay. I have interacted with you briefly and can confidently say that you aren’t typical like the VCs I describe above. But this is feedback that I hope, as a person of your standing and reputation in the (VC) industry, you could do something about within the VC community. Maybe there have been dialogues or discussions about this among VCs, but at least I have personally not seen too much shift in the attitute / appetite over the last few years.
That’s my two paisa about this blog post / FE article.
Rgds,
Param
Eat a piece of your favourite sweet. Now eat another one. Now another one. If I serve you one hundred pieces, does anyone think it will remain a joy?
Please!
Tired of “thought leaders”, “debates” and What do you **think** questions.
Hello
Ari – Someone somewhere said “Excess of everything is bad”. Well needless to say this was the spoil sport for me.
Krish – Thanks for pointing to some similar incidents of past and even sharing different perspectives.
Sanjay – Quality or the re-publishing was not the culprit, but definitely the overdose (# of back to back articles) without giving the reader a chance to digest/trip/discuss and add value,was. I believe with the credits (as mentioned in your posts), your personal experiences with maybe links to all the posts you (re)published would have been an interesting grab.
BTW – I really appreciate the meat in the articles.Individually none of them gave me an inkling, that i am re-reading this.
Articles when republished need a context, a compulsive setting for them to do a re-run. Your first series met with positive response or at least didn’t provoke rebukes. But then it demonstrated a pattern, of old articles that ended with a frivolous “what do you think?” to give it a bloggy texture. Now, you can’t blame the readers that noticed it.
Think it wouldn’t have mattered as much had it come in small doses, tuned in with timely relevance on or about the time the articles were published in FE. I remember the ribbing Sramana Mitra, Kamla Bhatt too got here when their early noble intentions (of wisening the readers) slowly gave way to hubris. Somewhere down the line they took VW readers for granted and overstepped – and faced the music. At least you showed the earnestness to come back and ask where you’d gone wrong. Admire that.
I liked all your articles. I must put it on record though.