Honestly, I had a blog post lined up about ex-Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi and his insistence that the CD that made it’s way to the internet was doctored. If that CD was doctored and it was not really him, then Pixar needs to find and hire the guy for his amazing computer-generated imagery (CGI) skills.

Anyways, the reason for the silence is because I’m in the process of writing a book. I just started the book and hence this blog might feel like being the first person at a party – empty and nothing to do. However, I will be writing from time to time on various topics but not consistently until the book is released.

What is the book about? Ahh, you’ll just have to wait and see once it gets published.

The idea of having a wealth manager, financial advisor or private banker looking after your money sounds very alluring. Typically, these managers charge you based on the assets under management (AUM) they supervise, so if they charge 1% and you have USD 1,000,000 you will be paying them USD 10,000 a year. The fees range from .5% to 2.5% and that is just the management fee, there are also the fees that the products they recommend charge. This multi-layer fee structure is what most startups want to disrupt.

One of the most respected wealth managers is Goldman Sachs Private Wealth Management. Never heard of them? There is a reason, you need a minimum of USD 100 million in liquid investments to even open an account. They don’t need to advertise because they get many of their clients from the various deals they advise on around the world – M&A, private equity, restructuring and public offerings. So, who are some of the new kids on the block challenging the old boys network of Wall Street?  Betterment, FutureAdvisor, Personal Capital and Wealthfront.

Betterment, Personal Capital and Wealthfront all charge a percentage of the AUM – Betterment (.15%), Personal Capital (~.80%) and Wealthfront (.25%). FutureAdvisor charges a fixed cost whether you have USD 10 or USD 10 million, the most expensive plan is USD 195 a year.  All these ventures want to re-create mint.com for the wealth management space by relying heavily on technology and try to minimize the amount of human interaction with an advisor.

Of all of them, I believe Personal Capital might have a shot since it still relies on a traditional advisor but it’s fee structure is essentially the same as existing wealth managers. Having a slick user interface with great graphics might work for mint.com but in the wealth management space having access to an advisor on demand is really the core of the business. Working on a clients overall asset allocation is only one piece of the pie. So, is there a better model?

The existing old school wealth managers charge a hefty percentage and provide advisors whenever a client calls and even provide access to specialists for areas such as taxation and succession planning. The clients are happy but pay a heavy price. The new age websites want to limit access to advisors and use technology to streamline the advice. However, by taking a page from the health insurance playbook and implementing a co-pay system it might bridge the gap. A quick recap of the insurance industry co-payment system:

A type of insurance policy where the insured pays a specified amount of out-of-pocket expenses for health-care services such as doctor visits and prescriptions drugs at the time the service is rendered, with the insurer paying the remaining costs

A co-pay system could provide the happy balance between a wealth management firm and its clients. The management fee would be similar to the monthly/yearly insurance premium you would pay. Then if you have a specific question you would request access to an expert advisor and pay a small fee for the advice. If the advice generates additional fees for the management firm then great, if not then at least it would be able to partially cover the cost of the meeting. The co-pay system might be a radical idea but then again the industry is ripe for disruptive change.

In between is that fine line that needs to be in place for markets to be efficient, transparent and trustworthy. In an emerging market like India, the regulators should be first and foremost focused on protecting the consumer. Secondly, in order to attract first time consumers the regulators should be promoting a culture of openness, simplicity and easy to understand language for financial products.

However, over the past 3 months the Indian regulators seem to be going in reverse and making it more difficult for first time consumers to make decisions. They appear to be adding more financial jargon to the process and potentially scaring off first time consumers. For most consumers in India, there are 3 government regulators that have oversight over the bulk of their money:

- IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) – insurance sector
- RBI (Reserve Bank of India) – banking industry
- SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) – oversight of the equity/debt markets

About 3 months back the IRDA essentially shot itself in the foot when it announced new guidelines for websites that aggregate insurance information. Overnight the guidelines killed the business models for insurance aggregators. Personally, if I’m shopping online for insurance I want to be able to compare the various products and understand the pros/cons of the various offerings. However, with the latest IRDA ruling it has banned these websites from providing “opinions” on products or ratings. For first time consumers a rating is such a quick way to decide which product is better. Instead you force the consumer to read through jargon filled insurance material and in the end they will probably not buy anything because its difficult to decipher.

Likewise, SEBI recently introduced new guidelines for the type of information that mutual fund companies can provide in their marketing materials across all mediums – print, TV and web. Specifically, mutual funds companies can no longer provide a rating from someone such as Morningstar, Value Research or S&P. In addition, rankings or testimonials are also off limits. Once again this is moving in the wrong direction, a star rating is easy for someone to understand like a hotel rating – 1 star vs 5 star. Of course, consumers could just goto the websites of Value Research or Morningstar and get the star ratings and rankings themselves.  But, that assumes a first time consumer would know about Value Research or Morningstar which I doubt.

The flip side is that these rankings and ratings were leading some consumers to skip researching these new products altogether. My feeling is if consumers are that stupid to part with their money that easily, then no amount of change in regulations will curb that kind of behavior.

Kodak is a company that couldn’t handle the innovator’s dilemma and recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As crazy as it sounds but Kodak actually invented the digital camera. However, it didn’t commercialize the technology because it couldn’t look past the highly lucrative camera roll and printing business. Those revenue streams would have been killed but it potentially could have made a killing with it’s latest innovation – the digital camera.

Another recent example is Cisco. Since the early 2000′s Cisco has been selling internet telephony products which were complex and required a lot of expensive equipment. In the meantime, Skype was building a consumer product that was easy to use and cheap. Ideally, Cisco should have bought Skype but it couldn’t look past its enterprise customers that were buying expensive equipment. And remember, back then Cisco was looking to be a consumer focused company by acquiring brands such as Linksys and Pure Digital, the makers of the Flip camera. Instead, Microsoft saw an opening and eventually acquired Skype. Now Cisco is challenging the Skype/Microsoft merger because it fears its own video conferencing solution may be blocked and enterprise customers would opt for a Skype/Microsoft solution.

This brings me to India, which I believe is stuck in it’s own version of innovator’s dilemma. Inefficiency, middlemen and leakage are all words for the same thing – corruption. When technology is pitched as a solution to curb corruption people come out of the woodwork and say how the proposed system is too expensive or too difficult to use or politically motivated. The reason for the bad press is because no one really wants to change the way they work.

One example is the government’s plan to move to an electronic system of government subsidies and social welfare payments using Aadhaar linked accounts. Initially it would appear that the middlemen would be completely cut out from the process, however by having money go directly to bank accounts many other industries/services might benefit from it. Services such as micro insurance, micro payments, micro financial services, etc… The dilemma is that the middlemen will have to do more work to benefit from these new opportunities and usually that is not taken very well. Hence, all the trash talking about how bad Aadhaar is for the country and people’s privacy will be at risk. This is a classic case of innovator’s dilemma – the middlemen are happy with status quo because they can’t think beyond their current revenue stream.

The above example is par for the course all over India. People don’t like technology because it speeds up everything, makes people accountable and introduces transparency. People are afraid of technology because they feel they will become irrelevant, but you become irrelevant if you ignore technology.

Whether you are a CEO, sales guy or entrepreneur the fantasy of exponential growth is what we all strive for. However to experience white hot growth is a myth. Over the past 2 weeks I’ve been seeing headlines of the white hot growth of Pinterest. (Yes, it’s heralded as the next “big thing” but I have zero use for an online scrap book. That maybe a simplification of Pinteret but that’s not the point of this post.)

Pinterest is the latest in a series of similar stories such as “XYZ is growing faster than Facebook did in its first 18 months” or “XYZ has more 1/4 the page views of Twitter”. The headlines are supposed to grab the attention of the reader and I assume make the reader want to get on the latest bandwagon social platform. The thinking is “wow I’m on Facebook and if XYZ is hotter than Facebook then I should be on XYZ.”

If you look at the early growth curve for Facebook or Twitter in retrospect it was good but not phenomenal. Twitter was slow and steady in the early years in the past 2 years the growth has really accelerated. In fact, when Facebook was launched it was not for you and me, it was targeted at the Ivy League schools.

Recently, Dennis Crowley of Foursquare summed it up best:

Everyone thinks the Foursquare experience is this rocket ship that started at SXSW 2009 and it hasn’t let up, when in reality it was a little spike and then a summer of nothing

The truth is Dennis can say this now and be open about it, back then if it said the same thing it would have surely killed the enthusiasm. Because, from a startup perspective you want everyone to believe that your company REALLY is the hottest thing since Facebook or Twitter. Which is exactly what Pinterest is doing. The question is, will they be around to be as honest as Dennis is.

It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.

Can’t really argue with Steve. Customers are really good at asking for incremental improvements. At MProfit we field 100′s of request a month and many are useful but most are not. Most are requests for a single feature to help that person but of course that’s not how a customer spins it. They usually tell us “if you add XYZ feature you will get 1000′s of new customers.” However, companies don’t grow exponentially by adding one feature here or another there, it’s about completely flipping the mindset and getting many more new customers in the door.

One of my favorite quotes in regards to product development supposedly came from Henry Ford:

If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse

The car industry for the past 50 years has been stuck in this add one feature here or increase gas mileage by 5% sort of mentality. Innovation has been slow and hence General Motors, Toyota and Volkswagen each have taken turns for the top spot for most number of cars sold every year for the past 3-4 years. As a consumer, I would ask for a 500hp car that gets 50 miles a gallon, which is what Henry Ford was getting at.

Companies big or small need to think about innovation on a much larger scale and not get trapped in a feature war.  It’s tactical thinking vs strategic thinking, but many people forgo the strategic thinking because it sounds too dreamy/fluffy and doesn’t bring in revenue right now. However, Apple has shown it really pays to think different and essentially tell it’s customer to buzz off because they don’t know any better. And yet I still come back to Apple…genius.

What happened? It was a combination of high oil prices, hubris and Honda. During the 1960′s Detroit was obsessed with cheap fuel, big horsepower and open roads which led to their focus on muscle cars - Chevelle, Camaro, Mustang, Charger, Corvette, Pontiac GTO, and many others. Once the oil crisis hit in 1973, Detroit didn’t have a backup plan and the Japanese took the opening to launch their cars. The fuel efficient Honda Accord debuted in 1976 and quickly made a name for itself. Honda did all the right things and soon the Honda Accord became the number one selling car in America.

In the 80′s American car companies had a bad reputation for shoddy cars, interiors made of cheap looking plastic and designs that only a grandmother could love – case in point the Pontiac Aztec. During the 90′s the Japanese were doing so well in North America they all launched their own luxury nameplates – Acura (Honda), Infiniti (Nissan) and Lexus (Toyota).  This led to them selling even more cars and the Detroit automakers slipped even further in sales. All the American car makers were focused on fleet sales to the rental car companies who only wanted cheap and boring cars to rent which was an easy to market to go after, but margins were slim in that segment.

During the early 2000′s, American car companies were focused on the high-margin SUV market and captured that segment with force. However, once the financial crisis hit most of them faltered. The American car makers from Detroit approached the US government for a bailout and got close to $25 billion.

Since then, the American car makers have been making hit product after hit product. The Ford Fusion and the upcoming Dodge Dart are two examples of products that consumers actually want to buy. In addition, many consumers (myself included) who would have never looked at American cars are actually looking at them once again. The Chevy Cruze in India has been a moderate hit and looks quite nice, also the value for money is another reason its doing well in India.

When I was visiting Los Angeles in August, I was impressed with the number of Ford Fusion’s and Ford Flex’s on the road. Southern California is car crazy and if a car can sell in that hyper-competitive market it will do well anywhere. In fact Honda has their headquarters in Torrance, California and Honda used to reign over this market. Sadly, the hubris that hit the American automakers in the past is starting to appear at Honda. Honda’s highly anticipated Civic re-design was panned by consumers and Consumer Reports dropped the Civic as a recommended model. And the previous number one selling Accord has started to look dated compared to the competition, so the story continues…

A trend that I have noticed more and more during 2011 was in the area of seed funding for a startup. I’m not an angel investor but I get about 1-2 unsolicited pitches a week. During 2011, most were structured like this:

Idea Guy – I have a great idea and I need 1 million dollars to hire the entire team to do the work

Me – What do you mean by entire team?

Idea Guy – product team, engineering team, UI/UX team and marketing team

Me – So what is your role?

Idea Guy – I have the idea

Me – Do you have anything so far to show for it

Idea Guy – Of course not, hence I need the million dollars

Me – Do you have a website?

Idea Guy – No, I couldn’t get the domain name, I couldn’t figure out which hosting company, but I have a PowerPoint slide deck…

At this point, I usually just mentally shut down and hope my cafe latte is still hot enough to enjoy while being tortured into viewing the slide deck. I could spend hours talking about how bad most of these slide decks are but honestly that is not the most concerning thing. The most concerning thing is the “Idea guy” wants a million dollars and then everything will happen, that is not how it works. You need to bring some talent to the table.

I can understand if you don’t have the technical skills to acquire a domain name, start a blog or get a basic website running but you might have friends that can.  The early days of a startup are about conserving capital and trying to persuade people whether it’s to buy your product or get things done cheaply. This “idea guy” wanted to hire PaperPlane one of the best UI/UX companies in India to design the site, sure why not it ain’t his money.

Recently there was an article about Dropbox founder Drew Houston who had to hack the Apple operating system to understand how the desktop icon images worked. This was something that even other engineering teams at Apple couldn’t figure out. I’m assuming the VC firms are backing Drew as much as Dropbox, as they know what is possible with him.

Bottom line, if you can’t figure out how to get a blog started (or know someone that can) how in the hell are you going to run a company. I can envision that million dollars being spent very quickly, which is not what people want to see when they are investing in an idea, person or company.

Something might look beautiful but if it has no real purpose…who cares how great it looks. You’ve heard this same story before in the context of dating, “he is really good looking but talking to a door knob is more fun” or “she is a California dime but absolutely dumb as a rock.” Instead of focusing on the needs of a customer, many startups are spending way too much time on packaging (user interface, funding sources, PR, etc…).  A great example of this is Color.com, it received a ton of press because it was funded by Sequioa for $41 million and when the application was released people were clueless about its usage. Since then they have gone back to the drawing board for version 2.

Some of the comments from the web that really got me to think about this user interface debate:

@erickschonfeld For social apps design matters very little. It's all about being where your homies are at. Most were on FSQ.

December 5, 2011 11:52 pm via Twitter for MacReplyRetweetFavorite

@Percival

Sean Percival

Design and user experience is the new intellectual property. --Ron Conway #sus11

October 30, 2011 5:50 am via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@garrytan

Garry Tan

Ron Conway is a legend in the VC space and you can’t really argue with his track record but I disagree with his comments. Not only that, but I’m pretty sure you can’t have IP rights to the way something looks.

Design is becoming a competitive advantage for startups http://t.co/j5Or9Wd8

December 5, 2011 4:00 am via BufferReplyRetweetFavorite

@sahilparikh

Sahil Parikh

Design might be a competitive advantage if there are many players in the same space, but it really depends on the category. Facebook had a pathetic website when it launched in 2004 when compared to Friendster. But people gravitated towards Facebook because it served a social utility, gradually over time the Facebook interface got more polished.

An example of an interface that is absolutely horrible to look at is Tally – an accounting software for the Indian markets. Most people still use the MS-DOS version and it’s reported it has 90% of the market in India. Why does it dominate the market? Because it does one thing really well – calculate numbers.

The dust has settled between SKS Microfinance and Vikram Akula and the verdict is in…a complete disaster for investors in the public markets. Rewind back to 2009 when Akula was the poster boy for microfinance institutions (MFI) and was on the cover of Forbes India. A year later SKS went public on August 10, 2010 at Rs. 935 a share and closed at Rs. 1171 for a gain on the first day.  Today, SKS is trading at under Rs. 100 a share, down over 90% from its peak of Rs. 1407. Akula has since resigned from SKS and investors are resigned to the fact that they lost a lot of money during the IPO. So what happened?

The press has had a couple theories of that went wrong, one of them states there was a power struggle between Akula and the duo of CEO (Rao) and CFO (Raj). The SKS model is similar to other MFI’s in that they loan small amounts largely to village women and then the village women ensure they all pay off the loan with interest. It’s a great way to push the risk management down to the village level. This has been done successfully for many years and continues to do well. What hurt SKS more then anything else was being a publicly traded company.

When you have shareholders, their goals are pretty simple – grow the top line revenue, grow the bottom line profits which will lead to a higher stock price. In order to do that at SKS you have to find more people and give out more loans, which is very similar to what caused the economic crisis of 2008. If the investment banks wanted to sell more mortgaged backed securities (MBS) they needed more loans which meant the lending standards were relaxed – if you had a pulse you got a loan. With SKS something similar happened, they were giving loans to anybody and everybody in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Some people had 4-5 loans outstanding and those people couldn’t manage to pay them back. This led to SKS reporting less than impressive quarterly numbers which led to a downward spiral of their stock price. In addition, once the government realized people had multiple loans and SKS was charging as high as 36% in interest they hit the pause button on the SKS business model. This again led to the stock price getting pushed down even further.

I believe SKS would have been fine if they remained a for-profit but privately held company. I can understand the founding team of SKS wanting an IPO as it provides an excellent liquidity event for them to cash out, however the short term goals of the investors are completely out of sync with the long term mission of what SKS was trying to achieve.