A Pleasant Surprise on the Upside!

While redoing our website, I accidentally stumbled upon an interesting piece of information.

I wanted to create a portfolio filter that would allow a visitor to create portfolio cohorts using factors such as the year of our investment, whether we were current investors, which startups we had exited from, or which sector the startup operated in and so on.

While tagging the startups, my team discovered that 4 of Artha Venture Fund’s portfolio companies had at least 1 female founder, i.e., 66% of the fund’s portfolio! This statistic piqued my interest as I stress the importance of being gender-neutral when it came to choosing our founders. Yet our female founder representation was far higher than the 20% female founder representation reported in CrunchBase EoY 2019 Diversity Report published in January 2020.

I dug further to look into our upcoming pipeline, which told me that out of the 5 deals which were at an advanced stage of closure, 3 deals had at least 1 female in the founding teams – 2 where the female founders held the CEO position!

I still felt that my sample size was too small to form an opinion. So I widened my search. My team & I started an investigation into my previous portfolio that I had set-up through our family office, i.e., Artha India Ventures.

The team keeps granular information on my past performance to report to institutions and family offices that need the information as a part of their due diligence. It took a few hours to figure it out, but 22 out of the 69 startups I had previously invested in had one female founder, i.e., almost a 33% representation!

MicrosoftTeams-image

The team went deeper to uncover that the female founder cohort delivered a 41% IRR with 4.3x multiple on invested capital in comparison to an overall portfolio IRR of 56% with a 4.6x investment multiple. Though the female cohort performance is lower than the overall performance; it does not tell the entire picture.

Our 330x multiple in OYO skews the numbers in favor of the XY chromosome cohort, but several of our female founder companies are raising new rounds of capital. One of them is months from becoming a unicorn, so it is a matter of when (not if) when the female cohort will be the alpha for the portfolio. While an eye-opener, I am not proud of beating the gender bias – not this way.

What I am proud of is that diversity happened without gender bias in favor of the XX chromosome. I am very vocal in stating that we do not favor a particular gender in our employees or founders. I believe that being entrepreneurial is a gender-neutral trait, and to invest in someone because they have or lack a Y chromosome is foolhardy.

Despite these results, I continue to stand up for what I said in last year’s blog post, Why I refuse to promote Women’s Entrepreneurship. 

The moment that I start treating a founder differently because they are women, it means that I do not see them as equals. I will skew my thoughts to cater to my bias, and it will hurt them as much as it will hurt my bank balance.”

To investigate if my lack of bias was something I felt or did it percolate down to our treatment of our female founders, I asked my XX founders whether they felt any bias from our end. Besides, I asked them why they gave a seat to Artha for their entrepreneurial journey. This is what they had to say:

IMG_8029

WhatsApp Image 2020-03-09 at 7.24.53 PM

The diversity of the artha eco-system is felt in all the events we come together with Artha- where we meet entrepreneurs working on awesome ideas - pushing through- without feeling any differenc

In closing, while global reports state that the penetration of female founders in startups is very low, I have little concerns for the same. People whose investment lens has a filter against a particular group of people due to their color, country, or chromosome will lose out – lose big.

I am glad that our lens is crystal clear and that my team chooses the best people for the founder’s job. We follow an incredibly meticulous approach when it comes to choosing our founders.

Not always do we have the most qualified founders, but we attract the most passionate founders’ with a deep internal drive for the problem they are solving. We trust in our process of channelizing a founder’s energy to win one battle at a time and create category-leading companies.

Now if that means that our winning portfolio has a disproportionately high number of female founder companies – then so be it!

Why I refuse to promote women's entrepreneurship

Tomorrow I am judging a start-up competition in Delhi that awards its winner up to Rs. 5 lakhs to start their business. Since the contest is only for women, I have received several messages thanking and congratulating me for promoting women’s entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, I am not a big believer in “women’s” entrepreneurship.

I believe that word entrepreneurship is asexual and to treat someone, mainly because they are a female founder (or entrepreneur), with a different mindset is simply not right. Why should we denigrate a founder, just because she is a woman? Does her X chromosome make her business any less valuable, profitable, or exciting?

Therefore, it irks me that there are events, panels, discussions, specially curated to promote women’s entrepreneurship or female founders, exclusively. Most female founders and executives that I have interacted with see it the same way. We all know that anyone discriminating against a business run by a woman leader or refusing to fund a female founder hurts the person holding the bias much more than it hurts the woman – not only in terms of mindset but also on return on investment. 

When I look at my portfolio, I see amazing founders. It is just an afterthought that over 50% of them have women co-founders like Prerna at Daalchini, Kanika at Jadooz and Dhanya at KabaddiAdda. Even within my family office portfolio, several of our most successful investments are powered by female founders like Shivani at Tala, Avneet at CarveNiche, Mahima at Coutloot, Naiyya at BabyChakra and many more. They have made us several x’s on our investment (and no I do not keep nor intend to keep a separate portfolio performance based on sex), and some of them will turn into unicorns in the future – one of them very soon! 

However, none, nada and zilch, of these founders or their start-ups are in our portfolio because they were women. They earned every bit of the success they have achieved, and I respect them for their blood, sweat, and sacrifice – as an individual. In my interactions with them, I see them as entrepreneurs NOT as women founders, and I hope that they know and feel that they are equals.

Therefore, I do not see any good reason to promote female founders or entrepreneurs, because I have experienced excellent returns on my investments by treating each founder as an individual and backing their businesses based on merit. The moment that I start treating a founder differently because they are women, it means that I do not see them as equals. I will skew my thoughts to cater to my bias, and it will hurt them as much as it will hurt my bank balance.

So I am going to continue to be supportive, critical, effusive, disappointed and elated by my founders without discriminating on them because of their race, age, color, sex, national origin, religion, and physical disability. I believe this approach is the best way to promote any founder.