GlobalGyan Blog

It's one of the biggest technology deals of recent times and there's some worry if we are seeing a repeat of the late 90s dot-com bust. (Remember, many of the 20-something old entrepreneurs were at school then and probably don't have any recollections of that euphoria and bust.)

First, about the valuation. We all know there's really no foolproof, scientific method to value many businesses, particularly in the hi-tech / nextgen space. Like art, it is often in the eye of the beholder. The best way to evaluate a valuation is to to see the most critical assumptions that one has to believe in. Let us peel it down...

Facebook has a Enterprise Value to Revenue ratio of nearly 20. In case of Google, which is obviously more mature than FB, the ratio is about 6. So, to justify the Whatsapp (WA) valuation, first of all we would need to believe that it could generate revenues of $1 - 3 Billion. Is that possible?

WA has 450mn active users and is likely to add a few hundred million new users annually. Is it reasonable to believe that it could touch 1bn users in a couple of years? Smartphone numbers are estimated to be 1.75Bn in 2014, perhaps 3bn by 2017. Can WA achieve 30% penetration? Likely. Remember, already Facebook has nearly a billion mobile users.

So, with a billion user base, WA would have to generate $1-3 per user per annum. Is that inconceivable? No, that's just about Rs 10 per month: all those forwarded jokes are worth that much, right?

Strategically, buying WA makes a lot of sense for FB. As Rene Ritchie points out, Facebook's primary business is to catch our attention (and subsequently monetize it). It was clear that people were spending a lot of time on Whatsapp; most private and small group conversations had moved there and probably FB Messenger was not having the desired impact. WA was multi-platform and easy to use (no login; no "adding"). FB cannot let people's attention wander away from any of its products; so it bought out a competitor.

Then what could go wrong?

For starters, the valuation multiples we started with could be too optimistic. Compared to other, "traditional" technology companies (Apple, IBM, Microsoft, AT&T -- their EV to Revenue ratio is 2 to 3 times), FB appears overvalued, probably Google too. So, if you took a 2X multiple, WA would have to generate $9 per user per annum, which is obviously tougher than $1-3.

The bigger issue is about the monetization strategy. Will a billion people pay a buck every year to keep Whatsapp or will they move to the next free messaging app? What caused it grow exponentially (no login, no "adding") could also be its weakness - mobile number based connections can be replicated on any other app almost as easily. Whatsapp groups will need to be recreated by the admins and profiles will need to be updated but don't underestimate the effort people are willing to put in to save a buck! As several hundred millions come up for their first payment shortly, WA will need to justify why it is better than many other multi-platform, free messaging apps (including BBM which still has many dedicated fans). And of course, the fear of advertising always lurks around the corner.

Overall, I believe it is a good, strategic move by Facebook. By paying only $4Bn (20%) in cash, and the rest through stock, FB has used its highly valued stock to make this risky move. Not only have they purchased a potential billion-dollar revenue product, they have also gained control over a major competitor that somebody else could have acquired. 

Not a day goes by on Twitter (or in the "real" world) without somebody complaining about the deteriorating traffic situation in <insert city name>. Mumbai is no exception; it is not just that getting from one place to another takes much longer but it has become rather unsafe to drive around. When we are busy e-mailing or tweeting in the backseat of our cars, we don't really realize the latter issue. It's only when you are at the wheel (like I have been in the last 12 months) that you see how blatantly traffic rules and safe driving norms are being violated. 

Often, we tend to blame the cab / auto / bus / truck drivers for rash driving, in a classic "us vs them" argument. However, just look around and you will see that drivers of luxury cars / SUVs are as much to blame for the situation as 'those' guys. I must admit, I was also part of that problem till recently - how does it matter if you jump a traffic light when there are no other vehicles around. One morning while dropping my kids to school, I stopped at a red signal wondering if I should just go ahead; it was still early and traffic was yet to build up. My daughter exclaimed, "Why are we waiting, let's go!" I was taken aback; it was only a year ago she was reciting, "Green means Go, Yellow means Slow, Red means Stop" and today she wanted me to break that rule. What lessons was she taking from my behavior?

The question that has since vexed me was, why did I / we break the rule? There are two major reasons, I believe.

Ego

Essentially - "My work is very important and I need to get to my destination quickly. That is more important than following the rules or giving way to the other vehicles on the road."

It starts as a trickle but slowly, competitive spirit catches up and everyone's trying to get ahead. This ego is usually accompanied by disdain. "I pay so much in taxes but look at the condition of the roads. Bah! Why should I follow their rules?"

Fearlessness

It might sound cynical but I have come to believe that most of us follow rules / social norms only because of the fear of opprobrium. When society fails to punish you for your "illegalities" then you have no fear of committing them. 

Take the traffic light violation. What is the penalty for jumping a signal - I don't know what the official fine is but I would imagine that a Rs 100 payment would be sufficient to let you off. But that's not the real penalty, because the chances of getting penalized are quite low, right? Only once in a while do you notice cops pulling aside violaters. The probability of getting caught are low, I'd say, no more than one in ten lights jumped. So, if you assign the probability factor, your daily penalty for committing an illegality is Rs 10. Compared to your daily fuel expenses of Rs 100 - 200, this penalty is a very small addition to your cost of travel.

What if the chances of getting caught increased dramatically, perhaps by the use of technology / traffic cameras, to 50% or even 100%? And the fine is now Rs 200 because you cannot bribe your way out. The cost of the illegality is now Rs 100 or even Rs 200 per day, a significant number that might deter many from jumping the light. 

While ego causes some people to violate rules, it is this fearlessness that prompts almost everyone to commit illegalities. And it does not just stop with traffic lights. Once we start getting away with our small 'crimes', what's stopping us from moving to the next bigger one? Our importance and our invincibility keeps getting reinforced till, of course, we are brought to the ground with a great thud!

Finally, we must, yes, speak about all the scams, corruption and crime out there, but the next time when the traffic light turns red, also think of the crime we are about to commit.

PS. It is not a valid excuse that your driver jumped the traffic light while you were busy reading this blog-post. It is your car; take responsibility.

Today's Swaminomics highlights the loss of India's competitiveness as a nation: 

GDP growth has halved to 4.5%. India has become uncompetitive in several ways. Worse, the Indian political class has stopped even trying to compete globally. It focuses on subsidies, reservations and special measures for sundry vote banks, regardless of the implications for competitiveness.

Why is this so important? Because, there are multiple options for resources (capital and labour) to be invested. Whether it is foreign investment or Indian money, if it becomes too difficult or unattractive to operate in India, poof, many other countries are waiting for that money. Similarly, the best talent will move in and out of markets. Just five years ago, I was hoping (confidently) that 30 Indian companies would be able to fulfill late Dr. Prahlad's vision of becoming part of the Fortune 100 by 2022. I wrote:

India will be the third largest economy by 2022 and will contribute nearly a billion people to the world's workforce. The market should provide adequate scale to create globally leading business models.

An additional challenge for India is to consolidate what are typically highly fragmented and unorganised markets. Leadership in the home market is essential to achieve the scale that the Indian market can provide.

Several markets, including the US and the UK, are facing an economic slowdown. Consequently, several multinational companies are seeking to get into India and other emerging markets, making these markets more competitive. We have to defend the home turf not by creating entry barriers, but by directly competing with global players.

We have already lost a third of the fifteen years, and only one company (IOC, Govt. PSU) has managed to enter the Fortune 100 (2013) and Reliance Industries is close-by at #107. Looking ahead, it appears difficult that another 28 Indian companies will be able to make that shift. As Mr. Aiyar concludes,

Neither the courts, NGOs nor the politicians seem to care. A profusion of new rules and regulations are constantly churned out without any cost-benefit exercise to judge the impact on competitiveness. The latest Doing Business 2013 report of the World Bank says India has slipped from 131st to 134th position in ease of doing business. It stands 177th in ease of starting a business, 183rd in getting a construction permit; and 186th in enforcing contracts. Yet this damning expose of our uncompetitiveness produces no political will to change. We have a deep structural problem that is not even recognized, let alone redressed. Will India have to go bust again to concentrate the minds of politicians?

Almost all the reviews of Krrish 3 that I read before watching the movie warned me against going anywhere close to it. But when has logic ever prevailed, particularly when it comes to kids. And I must admit, I had enjoyed the first two installments of this trilogy.

Since then I have been wondering if Krrish 3 (K3 henceforth; I cannot get myself to type that double-r again!) was a good movie or not. Most kids seem to enjoy it a lot and hardly anybody walked out of the theatre during the movie. It is now reported that K3 has crossed Rs 250 crore revenues in the two weeks since release, making it one of the most successful Bollywood movies ever.

This is not a review of the movie, although I must point out what I found most jarring. There is no conflict between the two personas of the super-hero. Only the mask and black raincoat separate Krishna and Krrish; in fact, you see Krishna dancing and singing around a statue of himself. Contrast that with other super-heros like Spiderman, Batman or Iron Man... they are all reluctant "heroes" often unable to reconcile between their 'split' personalities. Not just them, eventheir loved ones go through similar struggles. This, I believe, creates palpable tension in their stories, often stronger than their conflict with the villain. 

On the other hand, in Krrish's favor, his story is an emerging one. He does not have years of comic stories, back-stories, make-overs or reboots available. He is a super-hero created for movies (nay, Hrithik Roshan), one movie at a time. Maybe Marvel or better still, India Book House could adopt Krrish and make a real comic super-hero series out of him. 

Anyway... the other issue that caught my attention was the relatively small scale of Bollywood movies. A 250 crore collection has made K3 the 2nd most successful in the industry. The Avengers (similar genre, Hollywood's 3rd highest grosser ever) had a budget 5X of K3 and earnings were 37 times more! In India itself, The Avengers earned Rs 65 crore. As pointed out in this article, the pertinent question is why Indian film-makers have no apparent desire to tap the much larger movie markets overseas.

In many industries, Indian companies have globalized, even when the Indian market was big enough (& growing), so that they might become globally competitive. Recognizing that products and brands from overseas have access to Indian markets, we needed to be able to compete with them in our home turf. And of course, many industries enjoy economies of scale and increasing the addressable market is a means to improving margins. Very high fixed cost businesses like movies clearly lend themselves to 'market expansion'.

Of course, as with any cross-border expansion, you cannot just transport products across markets. With movies, it is indeed tough to "customize" the product for each culture / language that one targets; at most you can dub the movie and maybe, edit it slightly differently. At the same time, the success of Hollywood movies like The Avengers or The Avatar has shown that good quality entertainment and story-telling is universally accepted. 

So are Indian film-makers shortsighted, focusing on the 100-200 crore collections whereas much larger opportunities lie elsewhere. Will the increasing corporatisation of Bollywood lead to larger scale movies being made in India, by Indians for global movie markets? In fact, a Bollywood movie with pan-India appeal that can earn $1 from each of the so-called 100mn middle class Indias has a Rs 600 crore potential!

During my corporate career, mergers / acquisitions was an area of focus and interest. Even my first major initiative in the academic world was the IIMA course on Cross-border M&A and Integration. Whether it was in the practical realm or the "theoretical" world, it was clear that the concept of post-merger integration was critical to the success of an acquisition.

One of the best practices in this space is that you plan for integration almost at the same time as you start evaluating the acquisition deal. There are two major reasons: integration is tough and you need all the time you can to plan for it; but more importantly, how you intend to integrate has major implications for the value as well as structuring of the deal. Many deals which may be attractive on a stand-alone basis, fall apart when you consider all the implications of what needs to happen post-deal. Or unattractive deals become viable with the addition of integration benefits or synergies.

Just as the above concept is valid in the case of a merger, so is it if you intend to de-merge a business / entity. Splitting a part from the whole comes with a similar set of issues around people, infrastructure, laws / regulations, etc. You can articulate an intention to de-merge (or merge) but a decision should only be taken after the separation (or integration) issues are considered and resolved.

Imagine if this is the complexity in corporate M&A which might involve thousands of people, what it would take when millions are party to such restructuring actions. This theory (or gyan) is extremely relevant to the way the Andhra Pradesh / Telangana issue has been handled by the Indian government. Like many other decisions, the govt seems to have adopted the principle of Act (announce) Now; Think (analyse) Later.

(Disclaimer: I am not close enough to the situation to comment on the historical and current reasons for the proposed split. Nor do I have any direct stakes in whatever the outcome might be. I was born in Andhra Pradesh and spent a few childhood years there. I have family and friends in multiple cities in AP.)

There are several (recent) instances of new states being created for mostly economic and administrative reasons. I have read some articles on the historical promises made to people of the Telangana region which successive governments have failed to fulfil. So it is safe to say that there are compelling reasons to consider the creation of Telangana state.

But, before announcing the decision as fait accompli, the Government should have identified and listed the major "dis-integration" issues. A process of consultation with key stakeholders (MLAs, MPs, media, opinion influencers, etc.) from all regions would have led to some acceptable alternatives for all key issues. The cost - benefit of these 'solutions' would then have informed us if the original decision was still worth pursuing.

It appears that the Srikrishna Committee did some parts of what has just been suggested. Unfortunately, the govt seems to have either completely ignored the output of that work or failed to publicly share what its resultant dis-integration plan was. The recent setting up of a GoM without any representation from the "affected parties" re-affirms the govt's disdain towards local opinions.

In my view, the people of Seemandhra who are agitating for a united Andhra really don't care about a "united" state. What they care about is the future of their jobs / investments in Hyderabad. What they want to know is that water would be available to the downstream regions. What they want comfort is on the centre's economic support to their state. Similarly, people from Telangana should be concerned about the availability of electricity for their state. They should be eager to know the economic development plan / support for areas beyond Hyderabad. These are issues that a dis-integration plan should have covered. These are issues that can be solved with some give & take, if negotiated in an atmosphere of trust.

It is still not too late. For once, can the central govt give up its unilateral behaviour and embark on a conciliatory process of de-merger? If not the PM, maybe the putative future PM can embrace the statesmanly role that is required at this time. Else, what should have been a clean de-merger will take on the ugly tones of partition.

Recently, I was associated with the launch of India's first white-labeled ATM (Indicash)... these are ATMs that do not carry any bank branding and are owned/operated by non-banking companies. One of the questions that came up from several people was, does India need more ATMs? Shouldn't the country be leap-frogging towards e-payments and m-payments? Aren't ATMs / cash the legacy "technology" in payments and transaction processing?

I can use a lot of benchmarks to show how India lags all major developed economies and even several emerging economies when it comes to banking and ATM penetration. Even countries where many people carry no cash in their wallets have more ATMs than India does. But let me illustrate my point (and the serious problem we face) through a simple example.

One of my several monthly cash expenses is towards purchasing milk. The vendor delivers 2-litres of packaged milk every morning and I pay him about Rs 2000 every month. I estimate that he has at least 100 other similar deliveries in my society complex. Therefore, he collects over Rs 200,000 monthly or nearly Rs 25 Lakhs (2.5 million) annually. However, his margin is probably only about 3-4%, i.e. Rs 100,000 p.a. 

Imagine if all the society residents decided to pay him using m-payment or cheque or credit card -- any transaction mechanism other than cash. His collection would now get into a bank account and therefore, "accountable". He will have to figure out what his tax liabilities are. Maybe he will need a Chartered Accountant to track his business income and prepare his returns. It is likely that he will eventually have no income tax liabilities but does he want to take a chance? It is the paper-work, the fear of extra hassles and possible bribe demands that makes him prefer cash any day.

Now take your grocery vendor. And your fruit and vegetable vendor. And many other local service providers. Every month, you make thousands in cash payments because the recipients will not have it any other way. In turn, they spend on housing, food and transport only in cash. 

I am not ruling out the importance of electronic / mobile transactions in India - it's a huge opportunity. But as long as there is a very large black (cash) economy out there and most small businesses are vary of the bureaucracy involved in becoming "white", we will have to make the frequent trip to the neighbourhood ATM.

Disclosure: I am associated with some companies in the payments / transaction processing business as an Advisor / Director.

In spite of its increased marketing and distribution activity in India, I don't believe Apple cares much about India, or cannot change enough to be more successful in the market.

Yesterday, Sanjay Bafna, editor of TelecomTalk tweeted about the iPhone 5s "official" pricing for India (Nov 1 launch).

I was quite surprised when I saw the prices. At Rs 52,500, the 16GB iPhone would be amongst the most expensive smartphones in the country. Not only that, it reflects a 20+% premium to its price in USA.

The unlocked 16GB phone is priced at $649 in the US; add about $40 for tax (varies by state). At today's exchange rate, that's Rs 42,675. Some states in India like Maharashtra charge higher VAT (12.5%) for mobile phones, so adjusting for that, you would get Rs 45,150.

The rumoured price is therefore a 23% premium on what it would cost in the US and about 16% premium over what it should cost (logically) in India. (I am assuming that shipping from China to India is not more expensive than China - USA.)

Recently, there was a lot of discussion about how Apple is looking to rapidly expand its presence in India. I don't think that adding to its distribution chain in 50 smaller towns is going to help much at these price levels. Undoubtedly, there are many rich Indians who live in rural India and they seek the latest / premium products but there is also a value consciousness amongst most Indians. Those who can afford to spend Rs 50-60K on a phone will have someone get it for them from the US.

Also, take the 64GB iPhone, for instance. At Rs 72,500, it would be more expensive than the 128GB 11" Macbook Air (Rs 67,900)!  

I love Apple products and am fully invested in their eco-system. Yet, I would think hard before purchasing an iPhone in India. I understand that the iPhone positioning is that of a premium product and it doesn't seek to compete on price. Apple doesn't need to do special pricing for India - just offer it at the same price levels that it does in its home market.

Note: I am still hoping that the 5s will be launched at the same price as the 5 (Rs 45,500 for the 16GB) or at most, Rs 49,999 (to account for some forex fluctuations).

Two iconic brands that most of us have experienced are now getting together. Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia's mobile phone business for Euro 5.44Bn could light a spark in an industry that has become a duopoly between Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android platforms. There is no doubt that both Microsoft and Nokia have fallen behind their peers over the last 5-8 years, failing to notice and recognize tectonic shifts in their markets. This deal could put them back in the reckoning, for at least the bronze medal.

Microsoft has traditionally been a software & services company; its recent foray into devices (Surface tablets) has not been particularly impressive. Nokia was, till 2012, the worldwide leader in mobile phones and continues to make impressive devices for all market segments. The complementarity has been further established through a 2-year long strategic alliance between them. Unfortunately, the partnership did not yield much: Windows Phone has just 3.7% share of the smartphone platform market and Nokia doesn’t even feature in the top 5 global smartphone vendor list. Will an acquisition help them achieve the magic that an alliance could not?

For Microsoft, the acquisition is not so cheap; while it gets about Euro 10Bn in annualized revenues, operating margins are at zero. Even with annual operating synergies (read: head-count reduction) of Euro 450mn, Microsoft has to believe in a major turn-around of the business. In its analyst presentation, Microsoft has assumed a 15% share of the global smartphone market to demonstrate long-term value creation potential. From Nokia’s current 3% share, it is a long journey ahead. 

In 2011, new (ex-Microsoft) Nokia CEO, Stephen Elop wrote to his team about them being on “a burning platform” and sought to “take a bold and brave step into an uncertain future”. It must be conceded that at least the fire did not consume them. Its Lumia range of phones have been well received and in several markets outside the US, they are amongst the top 5. However, with even Blackberry (the other beleaguered smartphone company) putting itself on sale, Nokia probably ran out of options. Given its reliance on Microsoft’s operating system, it is likely that the Nokia board did not explore a wide range of suitors. 

For this deal to be successful, Microsoft has to take a fresh look at its mobile device and services strategy. Competing head-on with Apple, Google / Samsung and possibly Amazon would not make much sense. Microsoft-Nokia has to create new spaces for itself, whether in terms of customer segments and / or geographies. It could become a price warrior in emerging market regions where the Nokia brand still has huge salience. Alternatively (or additionally), it could focus on its stronghold, the enterprise market; acquiring Blackberry could be the next step in such a strategy.

Nokia’s transformation from a Finnish paper production plant into a global technology major was a remarkable story. Can Microsoft help Nokia rise again from its current depths? 

BlackBerry as a B2B services / apps player would be of value... Not much left in their devices play (except the familiar qwerty keyboard). 

When I think of enterprise segment, I am not looking at the end-user mobiles as they are today... there are many Business applications that are yet to get mobile-enabled... at some point, with security and data privacy concerns, CIOs could start playing a role (again) in decisions on devices, networks and applications. For instance, BlackBerry has a major play in Automobile OS (through their QNX acquisition)... that is an example of enterprise mobility. There could be similar stuff in Healthcare, Education, etc. These can be huge markets and are not necessarily (directly) tapped by Apple, Samsung or HTC -- yet.

Maybe I expect too much disruption from MS, but let me reiterate: the enterprise mobile market is not what we see today. It is not just a smartphone / device market. It is not Office or email either. Those are being addressed quite well by Android and iOS now. Somebody will disrupt the enterprise software / mobility market. It can be transformed; folks are working on it. Good chance it will not be an insider.

Two months ago, I wrote about a change of direction in my career / life and about a month ago, I became unemployed (self-employed sounds better, no?). Here is a brief checkin of the first month. I am writing this for two reasons: one, some of my friends / colleagues wanted to hear about and (perhaps) learn from my experiences; and two, this helps me clear any self-doubts about how I am using my time.

Fourteen years after I started working – all of them with the Tata group – I have decided to take a break from full-time employment. It has not been an easy decision, and even after the decision was “finalized” it wasn’t easy to implement it. But now it is done, and I will be leaving Tata Communications at the end of July 2013.

Well, “technically” leaving; it is not so easy to get Tata Communications out of my blood stream :) During the last ten years, I have been part of an exciting roller-coaster ride with Tata Communications (earlier VSNL); I have had opportunities to work on some of the most daring, challenging and (sometimes) "stupid" things. While I cannot say, I have done it all (one can never), I have to wholeheartedly admit that I had a fulfilling career with the Tata group / Tata Communications. I will remain engaged on a part-time basis, continuing a few activities and working on some new interesting ones.

Three people had a major influence on my decision, two of whom I have not met.

Tim Ferriss’s The 4-Hour Workweek had a profound impact on me when I read it three years ago. While many of the suggestions / ideas appeared impractical, I was blown by the audacity of it all.  It helped me dream.

Clayton Christensen is most known for his work on innovation but his book “How Will You Measure Your Life” was an eye-opener for me. Six months ago, when I was laid in bed, unwell, for a couple of weeks, I read this book at the recommendation of my boss. The three basic questions that he poses at us are worth repeating:

How can I be sure that:

• I will be successful and happy in my career?
• My relationships with my spouse, my children and my extended family and close friends become an enduring source of happiness?
• I live a life of integrity – and stay out of jail?

The third question was not an immediate source of concern (thankfully!) but the first two were quite pertinent. Would I let my life be measured by my designation changes or salary growth or the list of achievements in my resume? Or should there be a different set of ‘metrics’ that focused on how happy and content my family and I were?

Don’t get me wrong - there was nothing wrong with my job. I have great expectations for Tata Communications; my job content was constantly changing & challenging; and (to Gallup’s delight) my best friends now are at my workplace. But, the job shouldn’t be the only thing in your life.

Prof. Christensen suggests that for both businesses and individuals,

Strategy almost always emerges from a combination of deliberate and unanticipated opportunities. What’s important is to get out there and try stuff until you learn where your talents, interests, and priorities begin to pay off. When you find out what really works for you, then it’s time to flip from an emergent strategy to a deliberate one.

Of course, the difficult part about this is that:

Change can often be difficult, and it will probably seem easier to just stick with what you are already doing. That thinking can be dangerous. You’re only kicking the can down the road, and you risk waking up one day, years later, looking into the mirror, asking yourself: “What am I doing with my life?”

I had made my decision, yet I was having these doubts: was I being foolish? Suman, my wife, sent me a link to an article and said that this was just for me. It was Ravi Venkatesan’s blog post “Fear of being a nobody”. I read it with fascination; finally here was somebody whom I knew and it was as if he was describing my situation!

Without a job, how will I provide for myself and others who depend on me? Work is identity. How do I introduce myself to strangers? Who am I if I am not part of an organization? Work provides purpose. Simply going to a familiar place everyday, being responsible for some things and doing these as best as you can be meaningful.

 Ravi had faced and overcome the two biggest challenges that one faces in this situation:

 Fear and confusion. As I said, these are the twin enemies that must be overcome to build a new life and a new career. I discovered that fears arise from "stories" -powerful, hidden subprograms that are in the subconscious mind and end up defining how we think of ourselves and what we allow ourselves to do in life. We are usually unaware of the stories in our lives.

 If fears arise from stories, confusion seems to stem from lack of information. We simply lack information about what we might be really good at, what opportunities might exist out there, what things might give a sense of purpose and versus other things might merely be enjoyable.

Ravi’s four-part article helped me a lot, reassuring me that I was not doing something silly. It had been done before, so it can be done again.

Suman added a huge boost to my confidence, ready to jointly take the journey towards uncertainty. Vinod, my boss, has also been a source of encouragement, willing to support my new “avatar”.

Now that August 1 is not too far away, what are my goals for this avatar? Frankly, I have not thought everything through yet. I want to use my time to experiment with a few things.

1. Teaching: I started teaching a course on M&A at IIM, Ahmedabad in 2012 and hope to continue that, and maybe expand to some other courses / institutes. I’ve also been doing a bit of corporate education and will be involved in building some leadership training programs.
2. Photography: What started out as yet another hobby has become a serious interest. Having invested a lot of time (and money!) into it, I want to take it to pro-level.
3. Innovation: My Tata Comm journey has been about taking a few bold ideas and bringing them to life. I want to use my experience and passion to help others that are looking to change the world.

More than anything else, however, I do want to re-build my relationships with family and friends. People for whom I had limited time and mind-space earlier will see a lot more of me now, so watch out! :)