• A New Venture Firm Bets on India

    Vispi_Daver_400x400One of the biggest venture fundings ever was confirmed yesterday, a billion-dollar round for the India-based e-commerce company, Flipkart.

    Vispi Daver and Murli Ravi hope it’s a good omen for their new venture capital firm, Unicorn Venture Capital — named not after a popular blog post, they say, but a mythological creature in East Asian culture associated with prosperity. Indeed, with a little luck, they’ll raise the $50 million they’re targeting for their debut fund, which they intend to invest in early-stage tech startups in India, Singapore and Southeast Asia.

    Their backgrounds should help. Daver spent eight years at Sierra Venture Partners, where he led several deals in India-based companies, including Makemytrip, one of India’s largest online travel companies. (It went public on Nasdaq almost exactly four years ago.) Ravi, meanwhile, spent the last five years as the head of South Asia investments for JAFCO Asia in Singapore. I spoke with Daver earlier this week about the duo’s plans.

    Murli is staying in Singapore while you move from the U.S. to India. What’s the competition like where you’re headed?

    There are only about 40 people on the tech side of VC with early-stage investing experience in India and that’s probably across 10 groups, from indigenous funds to Sand Hill Road firms. It’s still very early there. MakeMyTrip is just one of three [India-based] venture-backed public tech companies, and the only one on Nasdaq.

    Do LPs think it’s still too early? I’d read that $190 million was invested in early-stage tech firms in India last year, up 25 percent from 2012. But those are still small numbers.

    No, the growth metrics are too exciting. Talk with any tech bellwether – Facebook, Google, Evernote, Dropbox, Salesforce – and they’ll tell you about downloads from India. Growth on the smart phone side has wowed everyone. Facebook already has 100 million users in India – the second biggest base of users after the U.S. If you take into consideration [other] app stats, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Vietnam – they’re all in the top 30 [in terms of users] and they’ll be in the top 10 soon, based on economic and population [trends].

    How well do you and Murli know each other? Have you made investments together?

    We’ve known each other for a year and looked at 75 companies together — two of which we’ve invested in and will grandfather into the new fund. We both grew up in Mumbai. He was one of those really smart kids who the Singaporean government sucks into the system, sending them to premier educational institutions and to a premier investment house after. [Before joining JAFCO, Ravi was a senior associate at Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings.]

    Why does it make sense to operate from two different posts?

    No tech company is focused on Singapore alone, where just five million people live, and similarly we think that Indian startups will be expanding into Southeast Asia and that having a presence there will be helpful. From a legal and regulatory perspective, it makes a lot of sense for India companies to [plant their] headquarters there. It’s very developed, with a government that works really well. There are also lots of positives in terms of easy living.

    How do you feel personally about returning to India?

    I’m excited. The environment in India is interesting. Entrepreneurship is generally in a lot of people’s blood. There weren’t as many professional jobs for the last generation, so a lot of people were entrepreneurs and it’s not a big convincing act to get people to [take the plunge]. It’s also the case the young developers are less and less different than their counterparts elsewhere. They’re using the same apps and learning the same ways to code. Big ideas can come out of India, too.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Legendary Banker Jimmy Lee on Thinking through the IPO

    Jimmy LeeEarlier this week, at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference, a trio of industry luminaries — Jimmy Lee, the vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase; Jim Breyer, CEO of Breyer Capital; and Josh Kopelman, founder of First Round Capital — talked with Fortune’s Dan Primack about the booming tech M&A market and what happens when we invariably see another downturn.

    As you might expect, each stuck to their knitting. Breyer, known for making an early bet on Facebook, raved about the number of billion-dollar-plus digital currency companies he expects to see five to ten years from now. Seed-stage investor Kopelman talked about the Series A crunch and why, if he had to start a new firm from scratch, he’d zero in on that underserved segment of the startup market.

    Lee, meanwhile, focused on IPOs, arguing that the investors and entrepreneurs in the audience should aim for opening share prices that have room to grow, even if that means leaving money on the table.

    JPMorgan has an obvious interest in shares that are priced to move: underwriters who deliver shares that rocket out of the gate are a lot more likely to secure more trading business. Still, Lee sounded like someone who has experienced his share of flops — Chegg comes to mind — in highlighting the “super asymmetrical” fallout that ensues when shares fall on opening day.

    “The typical banker on the typical IPO wants to tell management, ‘You’re handsome, you’re beautiful, you’re spectacular, your company is amazing’ … all of which may be true. [But] what happens is you can get this momentum that looks positive but can then be negative …”

    “If you price the deal too high, and the stock falls out of bed,” Lee continued, “management is unhappy, the employees are unhappy, the shareholders are unhappy…” It can also “do damage to your brand.” And “you just don’t know how long it’s going to take [to turn things around],” he warned.

    Indeed, after Facebook’s so-called “flop” of an IPO, it took the company roughly a year to regain the trust of public shareholders.

    On the flip side, said Lee, “If you price the deal too low …you can still increase the size of the deal, the price of the deal, and so on and still get the deal done . . .”

    Ultimately, he said, startups “really have to think about what [they] want at 4 pm. EST on Day One” of life as a public company and manage to that outcome.

    Paradoxically, Lee also advised entrepreneurs not to dwell on going public.

    “You can’t let the IPO define the company, define the brand, define the vision; that’s what the management team does,” said Lee, whose firm is among half a dozen lead underwriters who will be pricing Alibaba’s high-profile stock sale. “An IPO is a sale of securities. That’s all it is.”

    Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • The Beauty of Annoying Apps

    annoying appsEarlier this week, I stopped at the Palo Alto offices of General Catalyst Partners, an East Coast heavyweight that’s been politely muscling its way into more West Coast startups since planting a flag in the Bay Area in late 2010. One of those companies is Snapchat, the popular mobile messaging startup, and one of the investors I sat down with was Niko Bonatsos, who first brought Snapchat to General Catalyst’s attention. Among other things, we discussed why Snapchat’s most popular feature is no longer “snaps.” Our conversation has been edited for length.

    Snapchat users appear to be less and less interested in the company’s “ephemeral” features. Is that a concern?

    It’s the same thing that happens with other software products. When they get started, they’re very simple. Over time, their user base diversifies. So with Snapchat’s newest release, you can basically do a live video chat with others on Snapchat rather than one message at a time. And that’s fantastic. In the past, Snapchat was the icebreaker; now you can do much more. It’s still probably the fastest-growing app out there.

    What early signals do you look for when it comes to non-transactional products like Snapchat?

    If there’s anything that people are talking about in online communities, or if in reviews of apps, you see polarizing reviews, these are good signals.

    When you’re controversial, it fuels word of mouth, which also gets amplified by the media. Back in the early days, for example, Snapchat was perceived as the ultimate tool [for lascivious] texting; it wasn’t true, because 75 percent of the user base was girls. But the media picked it up. Later, Facebook launched Poke, which was characterized as a Snapchat killer. Most people didn’t know Snapchat [at that point], and they looked it up and downloaded it. Controversy is great when it comes to building a brand and acquiring users for zero marketing spend. Obviously, you have to graduate from one controversy to another, or three to six months later there’s fatigue, but it can be controversy because of behavior, content, or because your product annoys people.

    So investors should be looking for annoying apps.

    Yes. With Snapchat, a lot of parents were very annoyed with it. With [anonymous messaging app] Yik Yak, a lot of schools and parents were annoyed. With [the mobile dating app] Tinder, people were telling their friends, “There’s an amazing app where I can check out girls and if I like them and they like me back, maybe we can start chatting and hook up later.” Meanwhile, older people were like, “This is terrible. What are young people doing these days?”

    Secret and Whisper, apps where people share confessions and gossip anonymously, are controversial and, to some, annoying.

    But their word of mouth isn’t as strong. Things don’t spread quickly from one community to another. Secret hasn’t managed to break out of its techie, Silicon Valley roots. You can see that it has something like 100,000 Android downloads. It launched on Android [in mid-May], but for a company that has raised so much money and been so [buzzed about], you’d expect some more.

    I’m also a little hung up by the names Secret and Whisper. How many secrets do you have, really? Maybe one a day? Three times a week? I get the value proposition of the product; it’s like a Twitter parody account. But most content is, “My girlfriend just broke up with me,” or “I hate my boss.” It’s heartbreaking and after a couple of weeks, you don’t want to go back.

    Before I go, what’s one last trend you’re seeing?

    How fast we’ve gone from single apps to portfolios of apps. Google now has 150 apps between iOS and Android. Facebook has about 40. The world basically saw what happened in China, where companies like Tencent [the Chinese Internet company] now have [hundreds of] apps and do a lot of cross promotion and [essentially] game the app store. Mobility into the top 100 has become much harder for early-stage startups as a result, and if you aren’t in the top 100 app [download rankings], no one can find you. That’s the opportunity and the challenge.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Causeway Media Partners, an Investment Firm By and For Sports Nuts

    CausewayCauseway Media Partners, a Boston-based growth equity firm, has been flying under the radar since its inception in the spring of last year. That’s partly because its founders don’t need to draw attention to themselves. Wyc Grousbeck, a former general partner at Highland Capital Partners, is now an owner and the CEO of the Boston Celtics. Mark Wan, who cofounded the healthcare-focused firm Three Arch Partners, is an owner in the Celtics and the NFL’s San Francisco 49ers. Meanwhile, Bob Higgins cofounded Highland Capital Partners, where he worked with Grousbeck and invested alongside Wan.

    Higgins, who still sits on the boards of four Highland portfolio companies, says there is also an experimental element to the whole endeavor. In fact, Causeway was never something he expected to jump into when he began transitioning out of Highland in 2012. As he tells it, he, Wan, and Grousbeck sat down last year for a friendly chat, and wound up in business together.

    “We starting talking about what’s going on in sports media, and the more we talked, including with [sports team owners], the more [interest it generated]. And before we knew it, we’d raised a fund without even really trying,” he says, laughing.

    Today, Causeway has a clear mission, to find media- and tech-related investment opportunities that can benefit from the friends’ network of NBA and NFL team owners, media executives and professional investors. And it’s investing $125 million — including a “good chunk of our own money,” says Higgins — to “see if the space is as attractive as we thought.”

    They’ve already placed three bets. Last year, they invested $21 million in Formula E Holdings, series promoters of Formula E, the world’s first fully-electric racing series. In April, they spent $5 million for a non-controlling stake of up to 50 percent in the four-year-old Street League skateboarding circuit, which brings together professional skateboarders in competitions. And just last week, Causeway closed its third investment in Sport Ngin, a company that helps sports organizations build websites and mobile applications. (Causeway co-led the company’s $25 million Series D round.)

    Higgins says Causeway’s ability to make warm introductions is among the biggest benefits to its portfolio companies. “If you’re a biotech investor, you need to know all the pharmaceutical people, because they’re your potential partners and acquirers. Similarly, we’re spending a lot of time with media companies, team owners, and people with sponsorship dollars so we can make connections that are critical to our companies.”

    Going forward, the idea is plug between $5 million and $25 million into a handful of other portfolio companies – deals that will likely find their way to Causeway through a variety of sources, including some of Causeway’s LPs, which include the general partners of 11 other investment firms, along with sports owners. Higgins say the firm is also receiving calls from “people in the entertainment industry that know of things that are potentially interesting as acquisitions for them, but aren’t quite at that stage yet,” says Higgins.

    There’s certainly no shortage of potential opportunities, says Higgins, who sounds a bit taken aback by the amount of deal flow the partners are now seeing.

    “We’re looking at 100 things for every one [investment] we make. And inquiries are in the thousands.”

    Photo of Grousbeck, Wan, and Higgins high-fiving by Elise Mendola for Associated Press.

  • Relationship Science Trains Its Sights on the Venture Industry

    relsciIn February of last year, a New York-based company called Relationship Science (RelSci) pulled back the curtains from an online platform it has been developing since 2010, one that now features 3.5 million profiles of the world’s “decision-makers,” all of them mapped out to illustrate how they’re connected to one another and everyone else.

    Characterized as a “Rolodex for the 1 percent” by Dealbook, it’s not a directory that one is asked to join. Power players can’t remove themselves, either. Everything that Relationship Science uses is public data – some scraped from the Web, some from third-party data providers, and some turned up by some of its 500 employees in Indian and New York, who pore over SEC documents, campaign finance databases, annual reports and the like to create a graphical view of each individual and his or her “strong” to “weak” links to others.

    The big idea is to help businesses and nonprofits recruit, strike deals, raise money and sell stuff by arming them with more information about how to get to particular people. And nearly 450 clients – many on Wall Street – have bought into the vision, paying Relationship Science between $9,000 and “upward of six figures” a year for its competitive intelligence. Now, the company is looking to pull others into the fold, from political campaigns to sports franchises to more VCs, the company’s chief marketing officer, Josh Mait, told me yesterday.

    Relationship Science has already raised $90 million from investors, including billionaires Henry Kravis, Ken Langone, and Ron Perelman. Are you in the market again or will you be in the foreseeable future?

    I don’t have a crystal ball. I think we’ve raised a decent amount of money and that it’s given us the ability to build a sophisticated asset that can now be extended in a number of ways.

    The company doesn’t provide users with phone numbers or email addresses or a way to message anyone else on the platform, putting the onus on users to find creative ways to contact the people they research. Will that ever change?

    We don’t have contact information because we’d have a big fat spam machine otherwise. We made a purposeful decision to provide instead deep dossiers on people and companies and to let our clients – who are pretty sophisticated businesspeople – figure out how to act on it.

    What are some of the platform’s most-used features?

    One, called Pathfinder, allows you to run paths between any entity to any entity. Say I’m a partner at a VC firm, looking at a company and trying to reach potential investors. I might make a list of all my board members, which would provide me with more axis points to find relationships. Our search capabilities also help clients to do smart prospecting. If you want to hire someone with a particular criteria, it might turn up 15,000 individuals, but we can help you find people in that grouping who are just one degree [of separation] away from you. And we have news and alerts on the people most important to you, which isn’t always a news item in a publication but can be when someone sells a stock or makes a donation to a cause.

    Are you capturing people’s outside interests? I’d think that would be useful.

    We’re able to capture some interests and affiliations. I wouldn’t want to exaggerate it , though. It’s hard data to capture other than sporadically. We do allow clients to put in their own information, and when they come across someone’s profile, we’ll surface any commonalities they have with that person.

    VCs already have other options. Many might also argue that it’s not rocket science, figuring out who is connected to whom in the startup industry. It’s not nearly so big or opaque as Wall Street.

    I think you’re right about that perception. But I’d argue that any firm that’s looking for a competitive advantage should have a good handle on what their strongest relationships are — especially during critical moments when you want any edge you can get.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Louis Beryl’s Big Ambitions at Earnest

    louisberyl_1342762481_41Earnest is a startup that provides small loans to people based on their earning potential. But its marketing may be more savvy than earnest.

    For now, the company is selling itself as an alternative for people who have trouble nabbing an affordable loan. The big difference between Earnest and traditional lenders is that Earnest looks beyond credit history to where a person attended school, what she studied, and her current job and income. The proposition isn’t so unlike that of another venture-backed startup, Upstart, which also recently jumped into the small loans business, though Earnest asks applicants for much more information, including access to their checking, savings, investment, and retirement account balances. (Both companies employ language about giving “financially responsible” clients the rates they “deserve.”)

    It’s an intriguing proposition. It’s also mostly a teaser, unsurprisingly. Earnest says it can afford to charge lower interest rates than most because its technology has lowered its own costs. But the loans that Earnest offers customers — 5.5 percent interest on a one-year loan and 6.5 percent for a two-year loan of up to $20,000 – aren’t just hard to beat; they’re too low margin for Earnest to produce a meaningful return for the investors who’ve given the year-old company $15 million (money, by the way, that Earnest is partly using to extend to new customers). To learn more about what’s going on — and what’s next — I talked yesterday with Earnest founder Louis Beryl, a Princeton and HBS graduate who has worked on Wall Street and at Andreessen Horowitz. Our chat, edited for length, follows.

    You spent a year-and-a-half at Andreessen Horowitz before founding Earnest. What were you doing exactly, and how did it lead to this company?

    When I was coming out of [HBS], I was hired as an internal data scientist to look across [Andreessen Horowitz’s] portfolio at how we were making investments [such as] looking at how a team’s make-up changes as it grows. [Andreessen Horowitz] wants to help that great founder build a great company, and being able to anticipate in advance who [startups] need to bring on and in what capacity [is a big part of its value add].

    I also did more traditional VC stuff, including looking at financial technology companies. As it relates to Earnest, I started thinking: If you were going to build a financial services company from scratch, using data to understand people, how would you do that?

    Earnest says it can lend to someone at a very low rate because that person is so low risk. It doesn’t take origination fees, either. So are you counting on zero defaults, or are your products basically loss leaders, or both?

    We’re making loans to very credit worthy, very responsible [customers] so yes [to your question about defaults]. We also plan to expand with [clients] over time. If you’re someone who takes a $15,000 to $20,000 loan out of graduate school, we hope to provide other products for you as your situation changes. We’re laser focused on the products we’ve just launched, but we’re going to listen and if [our customers] want credit cards, we’ll move into that. If they want home or car or student loans or a deferral product because they have low cash flow today . . . we’ll move into that.

    Are you interested in the financial advisory business, as with a Wealthfront? You’re asking for an awful lot of financial information from your potential customers.

    We’re not interested in Wealthfront’s business, though we think we’d be complementary to them and maybe [attract] the same types of people.

    Hundreds of people come to our site and enter their information on a regular basis. You could choose not to give over much information, but a lender who doesn’t understand you well has to [charge you more interest]. We say that if you deserve better, we’ll price you at a lower rate than anything in the market.

    This is a low-margin business, that’s a fact. . . But we’re not here trying to make the highest margin on every client . . . We’re similar to Amazon in that we’re always thinking how we can deliver the lowest-cost product that delivers happiness to consumers every day. This is a very mission-driven organization. We believe we’re building the modern bank of the next generation.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • NatureBox Shows Why VCs Are Rushing to Back Food-Delivery Companies

    naturebox_121912-070.1363818457Venture capitalists have seemingly gone bananas over food startups. According to VentureSource, in the last 14 months, 15 companies that deliver restaurant meals have been funded; meanwhile another 11 startups that sell general food products were funded last year – an industry record.

    Are investors overdoing it? Perhaps, though a peek into the business of NatureBox, a two-year-old, San Carlos, Ca.-based snack-delivery company that has raised $28 million to date, highlights the opportunity they’re chasing. Earlier this week, I spoke with CEO Gautam Gupta, a former investor with General Catalyst (which is among NatureBox’s backers), about his 60-person company. Our chat has been edited for length.

    How fast is NatureBox growing?

    I started the company with a friend of mine from college two-and-a-half years ago. That first year, we shipped 50,000 [boxes of snacks to customers]. Last year, we shipped a million and we’re on track to triple that this year.

    Who, and where, are your customers?

    We have customers in all 50 states. We do skew toward a female audience. The largest segment is moms looking to find healthier options for their family and school lunches. Half of our customers are on the coasts; the other 50 percent are in the Midwest, where people don’t have access to Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s.

    How much are they paying for their Naturebox deliveries?

    We have three different offerings, so $20, $30, or $50 a month [based on how much you’re ordering]. You can choose the items yourself from 120 different options in our catalog, or we can select them for you.

    From where are you shipping the products?

    We work directly with almond and fruit growers across the country to source the ingredients. We then have a network of contract manufacturers who work on the product across the country and who send the product to our two fulfillment centers in California. We’re also about to launch an Indiana-based fulfillment center, which is a big undertaking for us and will enable us to get our boxes to our East Coast and Midwest customers much faster.

    What convinced you that this was a big opportunity?

    The traditional model, through retail stores, really involves a fight for shelf space, with [food companies] having to develop products based on the retail calendar. What we’ve done is take a product development cycle that’s one to three years and condensed it to the point where an idea can be made into a product that’s in customers’ hands in two or three months. More, as soon as it reaches that customer, we’re getting feedback about what they like and don’t like to eat and what makes products more or less successful — data that drives the business [forward].

    What have you learned about your customers so far?

    We’ve learned how important the aspect of familiarity is to a new product. We have four or five flavors of wheat fig bars available to customers on our site, for example, because the taste is very similar to Fig Newton [cookies], though our products are made of whole grain and without any fructose syrup.

    You spent eight years working at General Catalyst. Do you think VCs are beginning to plug too much money into me-too food startups?

    From an investors’ standpoint, the industry we’re going after is a trillion dollar market. It’s one of the last industries to be disrupted by the Internet.

    Will you be back in the market in 2014?

    We’ve had a lot of folks reaching out to us and have a lot of options. We’re kind of heads down, building the business, but if it continues to grow and we’re in a good position, it’s [possible].

    Before you go, which is better, life as a VC or as an entrepreneur?

    I started with General Catalyst when I was in college, and it was the only real job I had before starting NatureBox . . . I’ve now learned that building a company is so much of a team sport, versus investing, which is more about being an individual contributor. I’m definitely learning a lot, but I also really love the aspect of being able to do something and see the impact of that and really playing in the game. This job is a lot more fun.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • Cybersecurity Investor David Cowan on Hackers, Valuations, and What’s Hot

    David CowanWhen the news emerged last week that Defense.net, a cloud service that defends data centers and applications from cyber attacks, was selling to publicly traded F5 Networks, some were surprised it was being swept up so soon. Its founder, Barrett Lyon, had started two other cyber security companies; it had been incubated at Bessemer Venture Partners just last year. Could it be that the market – spending for which is expected to hit $77 billion this year – is peaking right now?

    Longtime cybersecurity investor David Cowan, a general partner at Bessemer’s Palo Alto, Ca., insists that’s far from the case. Rather, in a call yesterday, he said that Defense.net’s business is “an expensive one to build. There’s a reason there aren’t a lot of companies out there that provide this kind of business. I would have been happy to keep going, but I can understand why the team found it attractive to take a strategic multiple when it was offered.”

    Here’s some more from that conversation yesterday, edited for length:

    A lot of businesses complain that it costs more to safeguard their systems than deal with a breach. What are you seeing?

    I wouldn’t say that companies would rather spend to remedy the breach rather than prevent it, but [there’s now an] awareness that breaches are inevitable, so part of any cyber plan has to be preparations for dealing with a breach. There are startups out there today that all they do is sell breach-response services to help companies prepare for that inevitability, though those aren’t particularly interesting to me because [they] don’t use a lot of technology to do it.

    As we connect more things to the Internet, more things become vulnerable to attack, including heart monitors and other medical devices. Is that an area that interests Bessemer? Do you have a vertical approach?

    We generally don’t have a vertical approach, but having said that, I do think the medical device vertical is pretty interesting. There’s a vast sea of medical devices out there and hospitals that are running on old Windows machines, many of which are no longer even supported by Microsoft. And those connected machines are likely swamps for malware. And nobody has any visibility into them. Companies that are going after I that . . . it’s an interesting vertical.

    What’s one thing you’re seeing in cybersecurity right now that wasn’t possible until recently?

    I invested in this company, Internet Identity, because they enable companies to do what no one has done before, which is to collaborate on cyber defense.

    There’s a lot of collusion by attackers in the form of exchanges, [including] people buying and selling [personally identifiable information]. As a result, it’s easy for someone to ramp up quickly as a cyberattacker. But until 18 months ago, no one ever talked openly about security infrastructure outside of their company or government agency. It was viewed as terribly private and intimate.

    Since then, there’s been a really a big shift in people’s understanding that the private and the public sector all need to work together to share cyberintelligence, so that if an attacker is identified in one place, all doors [will be] closed [to that person] in buildings everywhere. That requires a lot of technology . . .and that’s what Internet Identity has developed and built. It now supports 30 federal agencies and at least three of the world’s six most valuable technology companies, and everyone who joins the exchange gets the benefit of all that intelligence in real time on their own network. It’s kind of like the social network of cyber; you share and you get back [a lot], and once someone joins the exchange, he or she naturally wants to invites lots of friends into the exchange as well.

    You say Defense.net’s sale wasn’t related to valuations. What’s happening out there, though?

    There’s been a huge increase in the value and multiples for companies selling cloud services to enterprises [in recent years]. With a huge pullback this year in the public market, I think it’s fair to expect that the private markets will have to respond accordingly . . .generally, when the [public] market goes up, it’s a matter of weeks before the private market does the same. When it goes down, it’s a matter of months [before private markets follow suit].

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

  • With $150 Million in Fresh Funding, Can the Amazon of Russia Deliver?

    maelle-gavetDipping into a flourless cake at a French bistro in San Francisco, Maelle Gavet has reason to be in a celebratory mood. The French-born CEO of Ozon, considered the Amazon of Russia, has in the last few weeks sealed up $150 million in fresh backing from investors — money that helped Ozon secure a minority stake last week in LitRes, the leader in Russia’s small but fast-growing e-book market.

    The achievements aren’t minor for the company, which Gavet has been leading for the last three years, after a Boston Consulting Group job led her to it. Founded in 1998 as an online bookstore, Ozon had barely issued a press release about its first $3 million round, from the Moscow-based PE firm Baring Vostock, when the dot.com industry imploded. Over the next decade, the company churned through employees, including CEOs, managing to survive but barely until Index Ventures stepped in to lead an $18 million round in the company in 2007. It gave Ozon a needed lifeline. But Ozon has really begun to click on Gavet’s watch.

    Gavet’s biggest, and likely smartest, gamble to date has been to invest heavily in Ozon’s own private shipping company, O-Courier, which is making it possible not only for Ozon to fulfill its orders but also to serve as a back-end provider for a growing number of third parties that now rely on its increasingly sophisticated logistics network to deliver their own goods.

    She has also been pouring resources into other subsidiaries, including a travel business, Ozon.travel; a shoe business à la Zappos called Sapato.ru; and Ozon Solutions, which offers turnkey solutions to brands that want to sell online but don’t want to pull together retail storefronts themselves.

    Ozon, which employs 2,300, is far from profitable because of how much it’s investing in growth. But with roughly half of Russia’s 140 million inhabitants now online, and 20 percent of those 70 million shopping online, the company’s efforts are beginning to pay off. Last year, revenue hit $750 million, up from roughly $500 million in 2012 (which was itself up from $165 million in 2010).

    Of course, Ozon still has its share of obstacles, some of which must seem insurmountable to American investors, who passed on Ozon’s newest round of funding. Ozon’s newest backers instead are Sistema and Mobile TeleSystems, two of Russia’s largest publicly traded holding companies, which invested in Ozon last month at a $700 million valuation. (They now own a 20 percent stake in the business.)

    Not only are there the obvious geographic, cultural, and economic challenges to navigate (enormous country, terrible roads, cash culture, fewer people than Nigeria and a relatively tiny urban elite with money to spend), but business is utterly entangled with politics, too.

    There’s the Ukranian crisis, for one thing, a situation that Gavet says has impacted Ozon indirectly but meaningfully. First, the Russian ruble devalued fairly quickly, making its import contracts far more expensive. Worried banks proceeded to cut customers’ credit lines, and “with retailers everywhere,” notes Gavet, “a lot of your working capital is through credit lines with the banks.” Soon, some European and American investors who Ozon had been talking with about its fundraising “stopped returning our calls,” Gavet tells me with a shrug.

    There’s also the little problem of Pavel Durov, the country’s most visible Internet founder, who just fled the country because of the Kremlin’s steady inroads into the ownership of his company, VKontakte, Russia’s leading social network. How could investors not worry that some oligarch will steal her company, too, I ask her over lunch.

    “If you look at Yandex [the Russia-based search engine that went public in 2011 on Nasdaq], it’s doing fine,” she says. The Russian Internet company Mail.ru., which went public on the London Stock Exchange in 2010, “is also doing fine. You have a lot of American investors in both of these companies,” she adds, noting that Ozon’s earlier shareholders include some U.S. investors, as well, including Cisco and Intel. (Ozon has raised $271 million altogether, including a $100 million round led by Japan’s Rakuten in 2011.)

    “You can always [hypothesize] over whether the government is going to be interested at some point. But if you look at the facts, there is no issue,” she says. “I do think there are industries that are considered to be strategic by any government; I’m not sure that online retail has ever been one of them,” she adds with a laugh.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.

     

  • Wealth Manager: “VCs Do Tend to Have Strong Opinions”

    financial planningMark Castelin, a director of investment advisory services at the wealth management firm Harris myCFO, handles a lot of the “unique” needs of ultra high-net-worth venture capitalists. We talked last week about how VCs differ from some of the firm’s other clients. Our conversation has been edited for length.

    Your firm does a lot of analysis on different sectors and considers itself a kind of sounding board for clients. I would think VCs are hard to advise, though. Are they?

    VCs do tend to have strong opinions where they want to invest in the venture space, though they may say they know nothing about bonds or emerging markets. So sometimes they use us as a resource for specific things. Other times they want validation that a path they’re pursuing is being pursued by others. And they want to know [their peers’ strategies].

    Your clients typically have $25 million in investable assets and a net worth of roughly $100 million or more. How much of that money do you counsel them is safe to invest in venture-backed startups?

    Maybe it will be 40 percent exposure to private markets, and half of that will be venture capital, so the implication is that they have a $20 million bucket to allocate [to startups]. Then we make sure that the client holds to that number and we work with that person to ensure that they diversify their holdings so that they include everything, including biotech and clean tech, as well as some geographic diversification, because so much is going on outside the U.S. right now.

    Do you steer ever, or often, steer them to secondary investments?

    They come along fairly infrequently, but in our mind, they’re a very good investment opportunity. These are companies that are fairly far along in the J curve . . . so the multiples might not be as high as with primary [investments] but you have much better odds of success.

    The saying in tech circles was once “show no chrome.” But people have grown flashier, seemingly. What are you seeing?

    I’d argue that [self-made] people are still more conservative than those who inherit money. Given all the stresses and strains that go into birthing a successful business, not many are wont to go run around spending it willy nilly. I don’t really see that many going on global sprees.

    There’s that old saying about “suits to shirtsleeves in three generations.” There are those who make the money, then the second generation that’s close enough to kind of respect it. The third generation is so far removed that they just see it as numbers in a bank account and they’re happy to spend it.

    Is the Giving Pledge impacting the way people view that self-made wealth?

    People of wealth have always been generous, but [Bill] Gates and [Warren] Buffett turning over entire fortunes to charity [has inspired more people to do the same]. I don’t think we’ve ever seen that practiced in the ultra high net worth arena except in the last three years or so, when it’s begun to gain traction. I think in the past, perhaps without the ability to connect so easily, people might not have thought they could have as much of an impact on other people as they do today.

    Sign up for our morning missive, StrictlyVC, featuring all the venture-related news you need to start you day.


StrictlyVC on Twitter