In my quest to get a technology-led global education network off the ground, I have now made several iterations of the business plan, made several presentations and attended scores of meetings, some with some success. Indeed, the ideas that I started with changed somewhat: However, that hurts no one as they have only become better, more road worthy, if anything. After several months of doing this, I feel more wedded to the process than I ever was. But I still I have one reservation which I have to deal with before we end signing up with anyone.
It is that to build an institution of any value, one needs what the silicon valley types will call 'patient capital'. My interactions with venture capital industry have told me a very different story than what I initially signed up to. It is fair to say that the structure of the venture capital industry may have changed since the heady days of dotcom, indeed because of that; it has become more interested in traction and tried and tested concepts than ideas itself. In summary, the VCs have started behaving increasingly like banks. That does not bode well not just for what I am trying to do, but also innovation in general.
I can't complain because this is the way it is. I have interacted people just coming out of business schools, and heading to investment banking, and they accept such thinking as articles of faith. Venture Capital (private equity, more so) is about backing proven management teams with proven ideas in businesses which got traction: This indeed sounds like common sense, except the fact that this misses out on the key purpose of venture capital - to enable ventures - and makes it far more like investment banking. It is unsurprising, because most of the venture capital industry is run by ex-bankers, and rarely by entrepreneurs. This brings the practises of investment banking into the realm of smaller ventures.
Which is about 3 to 5 years pay-off, etc. Initially, I was surprised that these organisations are even interested in Education, which I have always seen as a long term play. I remember being told by one Education entrepreneur that his biggest mistake was to take his company to public capital markets and succumbing to the pressures of quarterly results and the tyranny of the analysts: At the time of our discussion, he was trying to spin off the education division of his company and trying to take it to more long term investors. However, my conversations so far indicate that there is appetite for education businesses among these investors because of two reasons, one, because it is cash generative, as mostly students pay upfront, and two, because the demand is strong and the business model is easy to understand. However, this runs counter to some of the things we definitely know about education businesses: That one needs to create the capacity first, before getting students; that it is quite hard to make money in education and needs continuous innovation and building of reputation, and that usual business models hardly apply in this sector. Often, it seems that these investors are looking at a different business than the entrepreneurs are talking about, and indeed, in these situations, what the investors think is the only thing that counts.
It is fascinating to see that despite all the sophistry of modelling and sensitivity testing, how deeply ignorant most of the analysts are about the fundamentals of the education business. After going through this experience, I am not one bit surprised that BPP, which was acquired by Apollo Group in 2010, was overvalued by hundreds of millions because the business model fell apart in a few weeks, and recently, Montague Capital made a mess of their acquisition of the College of Law, where they paid a premium to acquire 'degree granting power' only to understand that they have only bought the delivery company and 'degree granting power' can not be bought and must remain with the trustee board. These examples aside, it is surprising how little the 'education' investors know about, or wish to know about, the sector they are investing in. The fact that these are actually incredibly smart people make this even more pathetic: One can almost see a narcissistic arrogance of being impressed by one's own smartness and driving through the world blindly.
While such interactions leave me with no doubt about the future of investment banks and the financial service industry in general, my immediate concern is to find 'patient capital', not just in terms of how long the investors want to wait, but also what approach they wish to take to the business. I am painfully aware, having been part of such ventures before, that a business needs to be built for its own sake, and if the key investors are more interested in window dressing from day one intending to sell it off in a few years time, that is a sure recipe for failure. I have, therefore, started talking more and more to individual investors, and even with larger companies, rather than VC or Private Equity funds that would have been the natural port of call as we try to put a Buy-in proposal together.
Despite the mounting criticism of For-Profit education businesses in Britain, I believe these institutions are needed, to offer the required variety in the marketplace and to drive innovation. They are needed if just to challenge the sloth and arrogance in the publicly funded universities. However, in the For-Profit sector, the most important task of an education entrepreneur is to pick the right investors, because, without it, the venture is destined to be a poor one, failing sooner or later. In fact, choosing investment deals is an important part of the education design, I shall say, though this is likely to offend pure-minded academicians. The truth is, we lack sources of patient capital. In fact, I have started to realise that I have better chances of raising the investment with right sort of terms in Asia than in the UK, as the huge market demand and long term potential is more visible there. This makes my already exhilarating journey in search of an appropriate business model for education even more fascinating, but I can't stop worrying about a market full of education outfits backed by private equity.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.