I'm starting to notice a trend in this blog. The three most visited posts on this blog are all exclusively related to my love life...I'm realizing that you all want to read about drama and romance - peppered with my snarky comments about the shortcomings of the men I'm meeting. So what shall I muse on today - the pick up lines I've been hearing (some of which are so awful I can't even begin to tell you)? The common themes I'm hearing from men about how I'm "so different" from Indian girls? How about the weird obsession 20-something males have here with facial hair - and how it bothers me less than I would have expected? Nope - today I'm talking about the sexiest topic of all - private equity in India!
Last night I attended a panel discussion hosted by The University of Chicago Booth as part of their global series of "Chicago Conversations." The idea of these events is to facilitate discussions on topics of note or of interest to foster debate and the sharing of ideas. I was really happy to see that Booth was hosting such an event in Mumbai - and that people from the university had flown out here to lead and/or participate. As an example, the moderator of the panel discussion was one of the top professors at Booth, named Scott Meadow (in case any of you care). Similarly, members of the admissions staff and an Associate Dean also were in attendance - they were combining this event with some recruiting and admissions events in Mumbai taking place this week.
The topic of this particular discussion was private equity in India. There were four panelists - two representatives of private equity firms (one of which was KKR, actually, although Dad doesn't know the guy), one founder of a venture capital firm, and then a representative of the Indian government responsible for establishing and enforcing regulations that these companies have to comply with to operate in India. The tension between the regulator and the private equity companies was evident throughout the entire discussion. There seemed to be quite a few nuances to the positions of each stakeholder, but in short, the private equity investors think that the government has instituted too many and too complex of regulations to fully take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the local marketplace. By comparison, the government thinks that private equity companies aren't investing in the right kind of companies here, that their goals are therefore not aligned with the growth of the Indian economy and that the purpose of the trust structure of funds is to avoid paying Indian taxes. Like I said - the tension was palpable.
The laws here have evolved over time, starting with a relatively free and open approach to encouraging foreign private equity investment. The government's enthusiasm for this type of investment was founded in their desire to give small companies a small bit of capital that will allow them to develop and grow (e.g. more of the venture capital side of investment than KKR-style private equity). What ended up happening, though, is that the private equity companies would focus more on doing large deals with already established companies, since it was more economical due to issues of scale. The private equity companies argue that they can't make enough money if they're focusing on doing multiple small deals, with higher costs to execute and lower returns. The government then responded by gradually instituting more stringent regulations around the deals executed here. One particular point of interest are the tax rules - the private equity companies don't want to have to deal with paying taxes at multiple stages of the process, and the Indian laws would necessitate multiple layers of tax payments. To get around this, the multinational private equity companies have incorporated themselves in Mauritius rather than India itself because that allows them to take advantage of a tax loophole. The government regulator exclaimed during the discussion that she has at times had to take heat from her superiors regarding why the gross majority of private equity companies doing deals in India are based out of Mauritius. This does nothing but help further the perception within the Indian government that private equity companies are merely here to make money off the backs of India and not put that money back into the economy.
The one venture capitalist sitting there was frank with the crowd - that while the Indian government is looking for more VC-style equity investment, the model isn't working. In fact, it's not working anywhere - at least not consistently. The government and the private equity industry need to find a happy medium where they can both have their needs met - e.g. that money will still be coming into the country, and that the companies who do bring in foreign investment monies will be generating appropriate returns without overly complex compliance issues to deal with. Is that asking too much? Who knows.
A few amusing non sequiturs came out of the conversation, which I consider worth sharing. One was a question from the audience, the premise of which was that the US legal system provides recourse for resolving things like the tax questions, whereas the Indian justice system doesn't work very well. The responder to the question responded with a haughty "well actually the Indian justice system works VERY well! It just works very slowly..." With the level of corruption I've seen in my brief time here, I find it very difficult to believe that the system here is equally effective as the system in the US (which admittedly has a plethora of faults of its own).
The other funny comment that came out was in response to a question about any advice these panelists would give to young people interested in getting into either the private equity or venture capital fields. The venture capitalist responded with the answer that if someone is considering going into these fields, they should first really consider WHY they have that interest. After all, if you look a little bit closer at the fields that seem to be the sexiest - just scratch the surface a little - you'll realize that they are actually boring as hell! He listed (in descending order of applicability) private equity, venture capital, investment banking and strategy consulting as prime examples of this. Nearly everyone in the room cracked up, since we all know how true that statement really is. When I tell people that I am a strategy consultant, focusing on mergers and acquisitions, most people's reaction is something along the lines of "ooooh how cool. that must be really exciting/hard/competitive/etc.!" My response is usually something to the effect of "it sounds a lot cooler than it really is." Because it does! I spend my time buried in Excel models, battling the mountain of accumulated emails and trying to stay awake on multi-hour conference calls. Not exactly the sexiest job out there. But if people want to continue to think that I'm flying on private jets, making handshake deals and popping Dom with C-level executives while the strippers wait in the back room, then fine. Continue to think that.
The rest of the panel was interesting as well, but I think I'll leave it at that, since most of you have probably dozed off by this point. Now - to satisfy your prurient tastes, I'll throw you a bone: all Indian men trying to get into my pants these days seem to love to talk about how great they are in bed. They will shamelessly tell me "oh I'm really good in bed" - as if that would make ANY difference in the firm boundaries that I am drawing with them. Please note that using yourself as a referral doesn't work in the boardroom, and it sure as hell isn't going to work to get you into my bedroom. I wouldn't mention it except that I've heard it from several different men. Why this common argument for why I should do something I already told you I'm not going to do? Does that line actually work on girls here? The problem is that now if someone says it to me, I'm worried I'm going to not be able to control the urge to laugh, since it's become almost a cliche. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the giggling would go over worse than the rejection itself.
Last night I attended a panel discussion hosted by The University of Chicago Booth as part of their global series of "Chicago Conversations." The idea of these events is to facilitate discussions on topics of note or of interest to foster debate and the sharing of ideas. I was really happy to see that Booth was hosting such an event in Mumbai - and that people from the university had flown out here to lead and/or participate. As an example, the moderator of the panel discussion was one of the top professors at Booth, named Scott Meadow (in case any of you care). Similarly, members of the admissions staff and an Associate Dean also were in attendance - they were combining this event with some recruiting and admissions events in Mumbai taking place this week.
The topic of this particular discussion was private equity in India. There were four panelists - two representatives of private equity firms (one of which was KKR, actually, although Dad doesn't know the guy), one founder of a venture capital firm, and then a representative of the Indian government responsible for establishing and enforcing regulations that these companies have to comply with to operate in India. The tension between the regulator and the private equity companies was evident throughout the entire discussion. There seemed to be quite a few nuances to the positions of each stakeholder, but in short, the private equity investors think that the government has instituted too many and too complex of regulations to fully take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the local marketplace. By comparison, the government thinks that private equity companies aren't investing in the right kind of companies here, that their goals are therefore not aligned with the growth of the Indian economy and that the purpose of the trust structure of funds is to avoid paying Indian taxes. Like I said - the tension was palpable.
The laws here have evolved over time, starting with a relatively free and open approach to encouraging foreign private equity investment. The government's enthusiasm for this type of investment was founded in their desire to give small companies a small bit of capital that will allow them to develop and grow (e.g. more of the venture capital side of investment than KKR-style private equity). What ended up happening, though, is that the private equity companies would focus more on doing large deals with already established companies, since it was more economical due to issues of scale. The private equity companies argue that they can't make enough money if they're focusing on doing multiple small deals, with higher costs to execute and lower returns. The government then responded by gradually instituting more stringent regulations around the deals executed here. One particular point of interest are the tax rules - the private equity companies don't want to have to deal with paying taxes at multiple stages of the process, and the Indian laws would necessitate multiple layers of tax payments. To get around this, the multinational private equity companies have incorporated themselves in Mauritius rather than India itself because that allows them to take advantage of a tax loophole. The government regulator exclaimed during the discussion that she has at times had to take heat from her superiors regarding why the gross majority of private equity companies doing deals in India are based out of Mauritius. This does nothing but help further the perception within the Indian government that private equity companies are merely here to make money off the backs of India and not put that money back into the economy.
The one venture capitalist sitting there was frank with the crowd - that while the Indian government is looking for more VC-style equity investment, the model isn't working. In fact, it's not working anywhere - at least not consistently. The government and the private equity industry need to find a happy medium where they can both have their needs met - e.g. that money will still be coming into the country, and that the companies who do bring in foreign investment monies will be generating appropriate returns without overly complex compliance issues to deal with. Is that asking too much? Who knows.
A few amusing non sequiturs came out of the conversation, which I consider worth sharing. One was a question from the audience, the premise of which was that the US legal system provides recourse for resolving things like the tax questions, whereas the Indian justice system doesn't work very well. The responder to the question responded with a haughty "well actually the Indian justice system works VERY well! It just works very slowly..." With the level of corruption I've seen in my brief time here, I find it very difficult to believe that the system here is equally effective as the system in the US (which admittedly has a plethora of faults of its own).
The other funny comment that came out was in response to a question about any advice these panelists would give to young people interested in getting into either the private equity or venture capital fields. The venture capitalist responded with the answer that if someone is considering going into these fields, they should first really consider WHY they have that interest. After all, if you look a little bit closer at the fields that seem to be the sexiest - just scratch the surface a little - you'll realize that they are actually boring as hell! He listed (in descending order of applicability) private equity, venture capital, investment banking and strategy consulting as prime examples of this. Nearly everyone in the room cracked up, since we all know how true that statement really is. When I tell people that I am a strategy consultant, focusing on mergers and acquisitions, most people's reaction is something along the lines of "ooooh how cool. that must be really exciting/hard/competitive/etc.!" My response is usually something to the effect of "it sounds a lot cooler than it really is." Because it does! I spend my time buried in Excel models, battling the mountain of accumulated emails and trying to stay awake on multi-hour conference calls. Not exactly the sexiest job out there. But if people want to continue to think that I'm flying on private jets, making handshake deals and popping Dom with C-level executives while the strippers wait in the back room, then fine. Continue to think that.
The rest of the panel was interesting as well, but I think I'll leave it at that, since most of you have probably dozed off by this point. Now - to satisfy your prurient tastes, I'll throw you a bone: all Indian men trying to get into my pants these days seem to love to talk about how great they are in bed. They will shamelessly tell me "oh I'm really good in bed" - as if that would make ANY difference in the firm boundaries that I am drawing with them. Please note that using yourself as a referral doesn't work in the boardroom, and it sure as hell isn't going to work to get you into my bedroom. I wouldn't mention it except that I've heard it from several different men. Why this common argument for why I should do something I already told you I'm not going to do? Does that line actually work on girls here? The problem is that now if someone says it to me, I'm worried I'm going to not be able to control the urge to laugh, since it's become almost a cliche. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the giggling would go over worse than the rejection itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment