Category Archives: Funding

Some exciting startups in the HealthTech Space #health2india

James Matthews, a good friend and entrepreneur invited me to attend the Health 2.0 Conference for entrepreneurs and healthcare professionals today and speak about Health Tech investments. About 80 to 100 folks were in attendance, featuring about 30 entrepreneurs, 25 investors and the others were from Pharma companies, Hospitals and diagnostics chains.

Our panel featured an entrepreneur (Poonacha), a healthcare product company (GE) VP (Partha) and Ravi from Zanec.

There were 4 startups that were allowed to pitch the investors, and while there was no commitment from the investors, the startups were not looking to raise immediately either. This was a session for them to get some feedback from potential investors.

There are 3 high level observations that relate to investing and entrepreneurship in the space that I want to highlight first and then talk about the interesting companies.

1. Older Indians overall have little respect for preventive healthcare or do not value it at all. If you are in the wellness space or “be healthy” space, the market will be relatively small is what I gathered. I hear many entrepreneurs say their target market is 25-40 year olds. I think the real market for wellness products, services and solutions is 25-30 year old’s. How can I prove that? Look at gym membership in India. There are 70K members for the 300+ gyms and the prices are fairly high. Why? Because gyms are a luxury item in India. The average cost of a membership is between INR 500 per month (non chain) to about INR 4000 (Gold’s gym). It is not that older Indians dont want to live healthy. They think that paying for “wellness” is overrated.

2. Going after solutions for doctors, clinics or hospitals is a curse from hell for startups. Most smart entrepreneurs are focusing on the patient (consumer) via the influencer (doctor). Which means that for healthtech startups, distribution and sales are less of an issue, but consumer adoption and more importantly usage is more critical. Most consumers in India dont have the discipline to master wellness and focus on preventive health choices, and the ones that do are far and few between.

3. Indian doctors see almost 2-3 times the number of patients a day as American doctors do, and still make 1/3 as much them. Solutions to make doctors more productive by educating patients, transferring more work to nurses, etc. will likely do well.

Here are the 7 interesting companies I met at the conference today, and here is a summary, in the order of when I met them.

1. Diabeto: is a diabetes management analytics application and device. It transfers your glucose readings from your Glucometer into your smartphone and cloud so your caregiver can monitor it. Rather than do a lot of automation, which will force the company to get an FDA approval, they do just enough. Very interesting company and a neat product and they have many inquiries from distributors from other countries. The global diabetes care market is fairly large so I think they are on their way to raise some amount of early seed funding.

2. Zest.MD: is an online clinic for nutritionists. The SaaS solution helps bring any nutritionists services online so consumers can review and purchase via the web. Longer term the company is looking to be a curated marketplace for people wanting to make healthy choices. I thought this was fairly good, but I am still skeptical of the size of this market.

3. Praxify: is a connected patient records management for doctors and patients. They were positioned as an EMR (Electronic Medical Records) but the market for that is long gone and dead. The average doctor hates using the EMR product and the patients dont understand its benefit enough. Good team and product, so this is a company to watch. Disclosure: they are a Microsoft Ventures company.

4. Fitternity: is a directory, content website, ecommerce platform and database for people wanting to be healthy. The product is aimed at people who care about being fit, by offering advice, products and service referrals. I have seen many such offerings, so I am not sure what their differentiation is.

5. Care Companion: is a education tool for care-givers: nurses, wives, parents, etc. Since doctors dont have time to explain the same things to each patient’s care givers, this product aims to provide the standard advice my means of videos. E.g. Assume that your child, after a doctor’s visit has to to avoid certain foods, take pills in the morning and night, but not afternoon, etc. this product will provide those simple instructions by disease or symptom.

6. Cyber Liver: They provide a breathalyzer which nudges you to avoid drinking too much alcohol. This is a extension (hardware) to your iPhone or Android phone that you breath into every time you drink. It keeps track of how much you drink each week and uploads that to the cloud, ensuring that you know if you had too much to drink. Very interesting idea, but users have to remember to breath into the device after they consume alcohol each time, and I don think they will do this often enough to make a difference.

7. mTatva: is a prescription transcription and alerting tool. Your prescription is scanned at the hospital to the cloud and your dosage and medicines are sent by SMS. Then it also send the prescription to your favorite pharmacist via SMS and will alert you each day and time with the dosage information. I liked the idea, but adoption is currently sparse.

There were a few other companies, measuring (using multiple sensors) the weight of your pill box to intelligently alert you when you dont take your medicines, etc.

Overall the signal to noise ratio at this event was VERY high. James has curated an excellent set of entrepreneurs and I was pleased to see such a diverse set of folks innovating in Heath Tech.

Why I dont invest in non tech startups #IIT #entrepreneurs

I was at the IIT Mumbai eCell event on Sunday and had a chance to meet students from various colleges all over India. The event was an eye-opener for me, given how many students were interested in entrepreneurship. This event had over 1200 people this year, and that was a 25% increase from the previous year. It is exciting to see the uptick in interest from students on becoming entrepreneurs in India.

I was on a panel with Suvir of Nexus Venture Partners and Bharat of Aditya Birla PE fund. A quick poll of the audience indicated that over 70% of the students were interested in starting their own venture and a similar percent were keen to build a non-software, or Internet / Mobile venture.

I clearly disappointed the audience when I said I would never invest in a non software / technology venture, and I had over 20 students come to me after the event to express their dismay. They were also very upset that I would be so categorical about my position both on a personal level and also as an investor at Microsoft Ventures. While they understood that Microsoft would not be interested in a non software company, they were curious as to why I would, on a personal basis, avoid these companies.

This post is primarily me addressing the question as a seed investor in the early stages of a company.

There are 3 parts to my answer.

1. Expertise: I dont have any knowledge, connections and value to add in a non-tech company. I invest primarily small amounts of money in an individual capacity so I can help the entrepreneur grow their business, besides just give them money. I dont have the background and intrinsic know-how of domains such as healthcare (if you want to run a specialty hospital) , education (if you want to start a school) or a restaurant.

2. Growth: My personal experience has been with about 30+ companies that I have invested in over the last 15+ years. I had invested in a Sports bar (restaurant) and also a real estate company. Both companies were started by entrepreneurs who I knew well for over 10 years. They both returned about 12% in interest each year for 3 years. Which is great, but does not move needle. Software and technology companies, grow much faster and in a short period of time. As an example if you look at the 39 companies that are “Unicorns” with over $1 Billion in valuation over the last few years, on average they have taken 5.7 years to achieve the $billion valuation. For non technology companies that have gone public over the same period and have a valuation over $billion, the time period has been 9.7 years. Almost twice the time.

3. Capital efficient in the early days: Do a simple analysis of the need for capital among the companies until year 3 and you will realize most of need very little money in the early (<1 year) and tend to be fairly capital efficient until year 3. After that they take a lot of money to get to $1 Billion. Since most of the companies end up failing, I’d rather put less money early in more companies than more in fewer ventures.

Are there too few seed/angel investors in India or is too much money chasing too few great companies?

This is a debate that I keep having with entrepreneurs and investors alike. When you talk to entrepreneurs they correctly point out the # of angel and seed deals done in India are very few. If you remove accelerators, the number of angel funded tech companies in India is about 60 (2013) and the number of Venture deals, which are about 50. Add the accelerators, which add another 60 companies and we have about 150 startups getting funded each year.

Given the number of entities that get started is about 1000 (2013), that seems like a small number. Entrepreneurs also point out the very investor friendly terms (drag along, liquidation preferences) that are given by angels in India and the fact that most angel funded companies give between 20 and 30% of their equity at the seed / angel round, which are common among technology startups.

On the other side, Venture and angel investors point out the relatively few exits (fewer than 10 in the technology sector) and the amount of time it takes to grow companies in India (over 10 years). They believe there is enough money for the right opportunities. I can point to 2 examples of companies we are trying to fund which have 3 competing term sheets at the angel investment stage to confirm that it happens, but is rare.

Which brings me to accelerators such as ours. There are about 30+ accelerators in India, but I am going to focus on the top 5. In discussions with other accelerators, the constant theme I get from most folks is the intense focus on the part of entrepreneurs to “get funded”. First the angel round, then the sapling round and then the series A. I know in our own case that is true.

So let me talk about our case in particular, although I have mentioned it before. We dont want to focus on funding. If that’s the biggest need of entrepreneurs then they should go elsewhere.

Unlike other accelerators which are not a corporate program, the key value to Microsoft from our program is startup engagement. We take pride in engaging with the startups and are extremely happy if they are successful, but the financial return from our investment is going to be largely negligible to us. Even if 1 of the 11 startups “makes it big” and we owned 6-10% of the company when it went IPO or got acquired, it would not be a significant dent to Microsoft by any means.

We had a chance to review about 800+ applicants this batch 4 for our accelerator. There were many great entrepreneurs and companies, but we could only support 10 – 15. If we were running a fund, similar to a venture investor, we would only select 2 or maybe 3. That’s consistent with our previous batches.

That we believe is a great disservice to the entrepreneur ecosystem. Many more companies could be small, non angel / VC funded businesses, and still do well. I do not like the term “lifestyle” businesses, but these companies do not warrant the money required by rapid growth, quick to scale companies.

So we do not put a lot of emphasis on our companies getting funded. We do help them get connected with angel investors and venture capitalists, but that’s it. In many cases we have worked behind the scenes to push investors we know to get deals done faster and at better terms, but that’s largely behind the scene. Our emphasis is to open doors and opportunities that help them get in front of other entrepreneurs, potential customers and partners and help them understand the discipline that it takes to be a great entrepreneur.

A few of our previous company entrepreneurs dont like that, and we don’t have a problem with that. Our goal is to help the ecosystem grow and allow more entrepreneurs to experience the journey. If they only wish to focus on funding, they are better off going elsewhere.

So, back to the question: Are is there too little risk capital in technology or too much money chasing too few deals?

Unfortunately the answer is clear only from the perspective that you are coming from. Neither entrepreneurs nor investors will be able to see the challenges the other side faces very easily so it is a question that quite possibly has no clear answer.

The best is to keep at the problem and have different parts of the puzzle try and fit themselves as they progress instead of force fitting more funding into companies or the other way around.

The other part of the question comes from the seed fund that we have as part of Microsoft Ventures. We have not invested in any company, in India, so far, but we have 2 in the pipeline. We get questions on why we dont fund all the companies from the accelerator.

The answer is fairly straightforward but very hard for entrepreneurs to swallow in India.

Microsoft Ventures fund is global. Which means we look at opportunities in the US, Israel, China and other locations. We have some fairly standard criteria for our funding – including, but not limited to the following:

1. We only have the authority to put money in a US or UK entity.

2. We can only use a convertible note instrument.

3. We need to have the company’s product’s well aligned with internal Microsoft teams / products and goals.

The accelerator, however, does not have the strict guidelines associated with these 3 criteria.

Finally since we fund all companies globally, the investment committee looks at all companies across multiple geographies and “looks” for traction, differentiation and other metrics and our companies are just not as strong as those in Israel or the US. They seem to need a lot more time, same amount of money, with potentially smaller exits. While that’s the nature of the maturity of our startups in India, that’s not a bad thing overall. We will get there eventually is my perspective.

Until then we have to fight battles on why we should fund a company from India, when the comparable company in the US is much further along.

The argument for China is simple – a US company just does not do as well in China as a Chinese company.

The arguments for a Israeli company are great as well – most of their companies are Delaware entities, have extremely strong technology (which is aided by government) and they have at least 100% more traction (customers, revenue) than comparable Indian companies.

What do you think? I’d love your perspective on what I am missing.

The toughest choice for an entrepreneur – Slow and committed vs. Fast and apathetic

Another day, another debate. This time it was Ravi Gururaj, Raj Chinai and Rajan Anandan vs. yours truly.

Lets have a twitter debate copying @rajananandan and @ravigururaj as well on your thoughts.

The debate is about the type of investors that entrepreneurs need now. I believe in the last 18 months, the Indian entrepreneur has changed dramatically. They now prefer a slow, but committed investor as opposed to a fast but apathetic investor. If they could have the best of both worlds, they’d like a fast and committed investor, but that’s as rare as a blue moon. Ravi is of the opinion that speed is the need of the hour.

Here’s the background:

Startups that are getting funded by accelerators are largely (there are exceptions) getting a better shot at getting funded that those that are not. Coming out of an accelerator, most startups get a few angel investor to put anywhere between 50L (or $100K) to 2 CR (or about $400K). This is their seed round. In the US, nearly 27% of companies raise the series A after this angel round of funding. That ends up being a $2 Million to $5 Million round. In India for 2013 that is < 5%

In India, because customer acquisition is slow and laborious, the next round after a seed round, is actually a sapling round (or bridge round) during which the entrepreneur raises anywhere from $500K to $1.5 Million. After this round is when most startups raise their series A in India.

So compared to the US startup, Indian startups have given up 7% on average to the accelerator, 25% to seed investors and another 30% to sapling round investors. In the US most startups go from 7% for the accelerator and 20% for seed investors before their series A.

The “sapling round” is very critical. The reason is that VC’s look for market, team, traction, space and competition before they invest in the series A. Most companies (over 90%) in India are clearly not ready after their seed round, with a complete management team, enough traction (aka revenue) and sufficient product differentiation to support a $2 Million round at a valuation of $4-$5 Million.

Say you are an entrepreneur and you want to raise a seed round and are given 2 choices:

1. An investor willing to move quickly and give you 50L in less than 6 weeks, but not commit to helping you fund the next round, either because they assume you will have enough to raise a series A, or because their investment thesis only allows them to put 50L per company and not more.

2. An investor wanting to take 2-3 months to make a decision (to get to know you, or because they are busy, or because of any number of useless reasons) but committing to give you 50L now and earmarking another 1 Cr to 2 Cr for 20% of the companies they invest in for a future sapling round.

Which one would you prefer?

Most entrepreneurs 18 months ago believed that a fast investor was better than a slow one. But I believe that’s changed now.

Why?

The time to raise a round is increasing, not decreasing. Most entrepreneurs are hearing stories of how some Venture investors are taking over 6 months before making a decision since they have enough good quality deals to pursue. They are also seeing their peers raise a bridge round of financing 12 months after their seed funding raise and realizing that a committed investor is better than one that is apathetic to a 50L investment.

I wish there were fast and committed investors, but that is just not possible.

Why?

The time taken to make an investment increases with the amount of capital involved. It is that simple.

For a Venture investor, $250K investments are quick, but $5 Million take more time. Similarly for an angel investor, $100K investments are quick, but $500K take more time, because you better be sure.

The reason for the $500K is that they will put $100K first, then commit to putting another $200K to $400K as needed in 12-18 months. They are committed to seeing you through a series A if they believe in your company.

Angel investors in India are realizing as well, that most (over 90%) of their investments need more money than they put in at the seed stage before they are ready for a series A. Given that 30-50% of their portfolios will fail, close or shut-down, due to any number of reasons, it is important to let the winners “win”. So they need to support their “winners” with more cash.

I’d love your opinion on this topic. Please let us a comment or lets debate on twitter. I am @mukund. Copy @ravigururaj and @rajananandan as well.

Outcome based ownership – an Accelerator model for the future

While accelerators have helped nearly twice the number of companies grow and start, there are still many questions about the value they provide to a startup. Which is why I see a dramatic change happening in the next few years in the model that accelerators operate in. The change, will be subtle but will have dramatic consequences on their operations.

Startup entrepreneurs are largely used to paying for outcomes – they don’t mind paying (in India they will negotiate a lower rate, but will be open to paying) for customers acquired, revenue produced or key resources hired.

I think the same will happen to accelerators. As entrepreneurs start to question the value of the accelerator, some of the progressive accelerators will start to offer outcome based ownership ratchets. Currently most accelerators get a fixed 6-10% of the company in exchange for $10K – $50K, regardless of outcomes.

The future will see a sliding share of ownership based on outcomes the accelerator generates for the startup.

This will also coincide with the un-bundling of services offered by accelerators. Currently the services include – space, some money, mentorship (advice, guidance, consulting) and network (access to the investor list, partnerships, etc.)

I can see the future when the initial amount of money (which itself will be optional) invested results in a small fixed ownership (say 2% – 3%) and then a 1-2% on closing the financing round which was initiated or supported by the accelerator or 1-2% per customer closed or 0.5% based on the accelerator helping hire a key resource, etc.

In fact many accelerators will offer the initial seed money as an option as opposed to a default.

Startups would then choose whichever services they see value in or those that they seek outcomes for.

Why do I think this will happen?

First, the perception among most entrepreneurs is still that accelerators are for “first time”, “student” or “inexperienced” entrepreneurs. The large exits and even larger companies are being created by entrepreneurs who skip the accelerators and directly go after financing by an angel or venture investor. Accelerators want to ensure those experienced “hot” startups or entrepreneurs also come to the accelerators as their first choice. These experienced entrepreneurs though, dont value all of the services equally, thus the un-bundling.

Second, many entrepreneurs are still not clear on what the value is that is being provided by the “mentorship” or the “network”. While the seed money provided has definite value, it is a very small amount to warrant a 6-10% dilution.

Finally many entrepreneurs still dont believe accelerator interests are aligned a 100% with theirs. Although most entrepreneurs know that the success of their startup is largely due to their own efforts, they should expect to see tangible value from the accelerator to help put them on the right track towards success.

Do you know of any accelerators that are aligning their interests to the entrepreneur’s outcomes? Any progressive accelerators that are trying this model?

How to apply MapReduce() to your #startup #funding process

MapReduce comprises of 2 parts – Map() -  filtering and sorting and Reduce () performs a summary operation. The “MapReduce System” orchestrates by marshalling the distributed servers, running the various tasks in parallel. This speeds up the entire process dramatically.

I met with a startup founder who made the rookie mistake of “talking” to 3 angel investors, focusing his discussion on only 1 person, who was going to lead. He then realized after 6 months that the lead investor was in, but others had gone sideways and were not going to invest. He did not spend enough time with the other investors, assuming that the lead investor would corral them.

You will need a lead investor for your angel round. As the founder you will have to recruit, manage and keep the lead investor engaged. There are other investors who may not lead, but are going to be a part of that round.

Your first priority is to identify the lead. Then you have to soft circle and get the rest of the folks to pony up commitments.

Most founders talk to investors who are not leading in serial fashion, going after then one at a time. I would suggest you MapReduce the process.

I know that many folks recommend you have one person in your team responsible for fundraising. I would suggest you filter your investors and assign one person in your team -Map() – to keep other investors “in the loop” – emails, scheduled phone calls or in person briefings.

You (the person responsible to raise the round from investors) should be responsible for the collation and summary – Reduce ().

This reduces risk of waiting for 6 months to finally figure out that you need other co investors and also “involves” your co founders in your company to help with fund raising.

If you go about it in a serial fashion, (i.e. one investor at a time), the elapsed time to get investment done increases dramatically but your risk of closing the round is still the same.

What do you think? Anyone tried this yet?

Which universities produce the most #startups in #India?

It is not uncommon to see most startups have founders from IIT and other top schools in India. I wanted to only take a look at the funded startups (Yes, that funding is not a guarantee of success is not lost on me). While Crunchbase only has about 103 startups from India in their database, most of them are not funded.

I expanded the list of early adopter VC’s in India to take a look at their portfolio list from their websites (yes I know that many dont list all their investments on their website, but we have to start somewhere). That produced a list of 219 companies in total.

Thomson Reuters gives us about 316 companies funded both by angel investors and VC’s since 2010 in technology. This is possibly the most comprehensive source of funded startups.

This produced a total of 478 founders and co-founders. Of those, 228, 47% came from the IIT’s and IIM. That’s a lot. Even for funded companies that is a lot.

I only took the top 9 colleges (since there were 3 colleges that all were #10). All this data is from Linkedin (where available). I also realize that most people do not put all their educational qualifications on Linkedin, so this data may be slightly off. I do know that 60% of the LinkedIn profiles associated with the founders were complete.

There were 11% of these (52) that had both an IIT degree and IIM degree. Here is a list of those colleges and the # of founders.

Tech founder universities in India

Which universities do tech founders graduate from

Keep in mind these are funded companies alone, not all companies. I was not surprised that IIM A and IIM C were near the bottom of the list, but what surprised me was that IIT Kanpur was lower than IIT Mumbai. Why? Most of the folks I know in the US (entrepreneurs and others) are from IIT K. The image has IIT Bangalore, which does not exist, and it should say IIM Bangalore.

This does raise a few questions that I would like your opinions on. Lets just dwell on one question first.

Why is it that nearly 50% of funded companies have founders from top colleges? Is it a selection bias – given that over 60% of investors (VC’s) are from IIT and IIM?

P.S. I know all the data heads and junkies want access to the “raw data”, but Thomson Reuters, which is a paid service, will not let us share this.

P.P.S If you compare this analysis to top universities in the US for funded startups, they make up a far less % of funded statups.