29 February 2024, Mumbai

Prince M. Thomas, TheMorningContext

Prataap Snacks should have been an easy sell for Peak XV Partners. The venture capital firm, which till recently was known as Sequoia Capital India, is the largest shareholder in the snack maker with a 47.56% stake. It first invested in Indore-based Prataap Snacks in 2011 and has since seen the company become the sixth largest player in the industry. An exit now would give Peak XV returns that would match some of its best exits, like those from Zomato and Go Fashion.

The reality is, finding a buyer for Prataap Snacks isn’t as easy as selling a packet of “chatakedaar” rings bearing its Yellow Diamond brand. In fact, those packets of rings may be one of the reasons why the company seems to have lost some of its spice with suitors. We will come to that in a bit, but first it’s remarkable how many doors Peak XV has knocked on without any luck…

The company’s choice of products, most of them falling under the category of “western snacks”, was prudent. “When it comes to snacks, the Indian market is very diversified. Each region has its own flavour and there are local nuances,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of consulting firm Third Eyesight. That means a regional snack, like the gathiya that is popular in Gujarat, will have fewer takers in eastern and southern states. Prataap Snacks’s products had no such problem as chips and rings were not region-specific…

Read more at: https://themorningcontext.com/business/sequoia-struggles-to-sell-prataap-snacks

An insightful must-watch discussion, moderated by Devangshu Dutta (Founder, Third Eyesight), with venture capital fund managers, investors and entrepreneurs in retail on what factors attract investors to retail businesses.

The panelists included Vikram Gupta (Founder & Managing Partner, IvyCap Ventures), Amar Nagaram, (Co-Founder, Virgio), and Vikram Gawande (Vice President, Growth, Blume Ventures).

New Delhi, 23 August 2023

Bindu D. Menon, Financial Express

Tata Group’s Titan Company is not the only one to be bullish on the fine jewellery segment by recently raising its stake in CaratLane from 71.09% to 98.28% for a consideration of Rs 4,621 crore. Other corporate groups as well as private equity firms who have entered this segment are making investments and scaling up.

For instance, recently, Aditya Birla Group entered the gold jewellery market with the launch of Novel Jewels with an estimated investment of Rs 5,000 crore. It also plans to launch large-format jewellery formats and in-house brands.

“The younger generation’s changing style preferences and shopping habits have favoured the growth of jewellery chains and a shift in jewellery designs to lighter, more contemporary styles. This has also facilitated the delinking of the cost and the product price to some extent,” said Devangshu Dutta, Founder, Third Eyesight.

Analysts following the sector said that lighter weight jewellery have been a game changer for the industry. Moving away from the traditional 22 carats jewellery line, younger consumers are opting for 12, 14 and 18 carat jewellery in minimalist designs; a trend largely mimicked from the western markets.

From the companies’ perspective gross margins are invariably higher in design enhanced jewellery as compared to traditional designs.

Leading silver jewellery brand Giva jewellery too had recently bagged a Rs 200 crore funding led by Premji Invest to expand its product line. The round also saw participation from existing investors such as Aditya Birla Ventures, Alteria Capital and A91 Partners. Giva reportedly launches 250 new designs every month, as per the company’s disclosure.

“We look forward to leveraging Premji Invest’s playbook on omnichannel across several consumer brands and retail businesses to strengthen our leadership position and establish our pan India presence,” said Ishendra Agarwal, founder and CEO, Giva.

Giva plans to use the capital for inventory management and expanding its offline presence in India. The company has secured Rs 130 crore funding till date, excluding the current funding.

Fine jewellery in India are priced between Rs 5,000 to Rs 50,000. Major players in the segment include Caratlane, Tanishq, Bluestone among others.

(Published in Financial Express)

(Published in the March 2012 of Images Retail, this is a compilation of Devangshu Dutta’s responses to questions put to him by the magazine’s editor on the subject of funding in the retail sector in India.)

India is one of the largest markets that promises a sustained consumer-led growth in the foreseeable future, due to the shift from a fragmented retail ecosystem to a more modern and consolidated industry.

Modernisation and consolidation will happen not only in front-end (retail) operations, but also in the supply chain of both products as well as tertiary suppliers such as equipment and service providers. Well-informed investors are looking at the entire ecosystem rather than only funding the front-end of the retail business.

The biggest challenge for private equity and venture funds looking to invest in the Indian retail sector is finding business models that are logically scalable within a four-to-five years time frame and allow the investor a decent exit. Due to the nature of the most funds and how they are structured, a seven-to-eight year term is the maximum time a fund would be involved with an investee company and it is difficult to find an investor with a longer-term horizon.

On the other side, this can also prove to be a challenge for the investee company: some of them may feel unduly pressured to grow faster than the natural pace of their business and could make strategic and operational decisions that are destructive to the business. As consumer incomes move up and the environment becomes more conducive, the life cycle to building a retail business becomes shorter. For instance, 20 years ago it would have taken over 10 years for a business to cross Rs. 100 crore (INR 1 billion). Today, with the right mix, it would take much less time. However, building a business that is both large and profitable (hence sustainable) still takes a significant amount of time.

Venture equity is suitable for businesses that can grow and add value inorganically, either in intellectual property-driven businesses such as technology companies and brands that can provide higher margin returns on a given equity base, or by selling the business further to investors who think they can derive even more value from it in future.

Retailing, on the other hand, is inherently an organic growth business, and the most suitable sources of funding for organically grown business are internal accruals and debt. However, the rapid economic growth in the last 15 years has created an opportunity for large businesses to emerge inorganically. Good examples of this are the large corporate groups that have entered retailing. Looking at them, one could be seduced into thinking that the environment and the business have changed significantly such that other professionally created businesses could be easily launched, venture-funded, and grown to exit. My take on this: If you can create a fund whose life is 20 years or more rather than the typical 10 years, there is a better likelihood of making it work.

Of course, bank debt is not easy for an entrepreneur either – Indian banks have become more progressive, but the norms are still relatively stringent. Unless the space is bought, the retail business has few significant-value fixed assets, and bank loans are limited for businesses that cannot offer much collateral.

Each stage of the retailer’s growth needs a judicious mix between own capital, supplier credit, bank loans and external investors’ equity. The last one evolves from friends and family at the inception, to angel and venture investment during growth to, eventually, public equity, if all goes well. Each of these sources of funding come with their own expectations on returns and disclosure, so an entrepreneur needs to balance these based on his own comfort levels. One of the most important characteristics for most institutional investors is that the business seeking funding should have a broad and deep management and executive team, rather than being over-dependent on the founder-entrepreneurs. There needs to be a demonstrated track record of growth that has been delivered by this team, and a clear future direction to sustain and grow the business.

It is a curious cycle: structured, process-oriented and systematic businesses that are not dependent on one person (the founder) are more likely to attract outside money, and outside money coming in puts more pressure to create transparency and broadening responsibility with which many entrepreneurs are uncomfortable. Most of them start their own businesses so that they do not have to report to someone else, but the moment there is external money involved, you realise that you are answerable to someone else. This is often a tough call for an entrepreneur – not just in India, but worldwide – a traditional, patriarchal and feudal mind set will just not work with external investors involved, especially in today’s environment where information and opinions flow more freely than ever before.

One of the most common mistakes Indian retailers make while trying to get funding is over-estimating the market demand. The second is underestimating the complexity (and costs) involved in starting and growing the business to profitability. Once you have put a business plan out there, it not only becomes a hook for your prestige, but valuation norms are also driven by the figures that have been agreed upon. This can cause business decisions that look productive in the short term – such as adding stores to grow sales immediately – but are harmful in the long run, such as adding stores in locations that are not sustainable. We have seen such decisions being made in the last five to six years, and investors as well as bankers are more wary today while evaluating businesses to fund.

A key thing to remember is: no matter how badly you want the money, it is not just about the money. From an entrepreneur’s perspective, who provides the money can be even more important than how much and how quickly the money comes in. For example, a particular investor could bring in a business perspective and relationships that are directly relevant to the entrepreneur’s business, which can add value well beyond the money that flows in. Commonality of objectives and a shared view of the time frames involved are also important, so that business decisions have the full support of the investor.

Timing is important: If you get an investor in too early, you may be losing on the valuation and selling out too much of the business to one investor. However, holding out for the ‘ideal’ benchmark valuation is possibly worse, because there is also a cost to the time and opportunity lost in getting the required funds. If I were to focus on one piece of advice to an entrepreneur looking to raise funding from a VC, it would be this: don’t try to extract what you think is your complete lifetime’s worth from the first investor deal that you sign. If the business is successful, and the first investors are happy with their returns, they and others are likely to come back to you in far greater numbers, offering much higher valuations.

Later-stage retailers still have avenues to raise debt and private and public equity, whereas start-ups and early stage businesses that can add significant entrepreneurial colour into the business are the ones that are struggling to get funded.

In many countries early stage seed, angel and venture investments are provided incentives in terms of tax structures – this is something that the venture community in India has been lobbying for with the government, and if provided, could improve the ‘investibility’ of early stage retail businesses.

[Readers may also find it useful to go through the brief presentation on Slideshare: “What does it take to create a fundable venture?”