0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

This article is more than 1 month old.

No such thing as a free meal, or … free make-up, apparently!

Mini

Nykaa has created a phenomenal business out of hardly any investment. Even if the evolution of the ecosystem benefitted the company, one must credit it for getting almost everything right. Regardless of that, the question of valuation is still one for secondary investors.

No such thing as a free meal, or … free make-up, apparently!
Malcolm Gladwell has an interesting start to his book, Outliers. He argues that “I did it by myself” kind of explanations to success don’t usually work. Most of them are invariably beneficiaries of hidden advantages, extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that enable them to learn, work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot.
Take hockey teams in Canada for example. Here, 40 percent of the national players are born in the first quarter of a calendar and only 10 percent in the last. What gives? No, it isn’t astrology. It’s simply that the eligibility cut-off for age-class hockey is January 1.
So, someone who is born on January 2 would compete with younger kids, sometimes almost a year younger. At that level, 12 months can make a huge difference. As the levels advance, it then leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy--you start getting more games, better facilities and the benefit compounds in your favour by the time you reach the national stage.
I was reminded of Outliers earlier this week as many brokerages presented their views on the upcoming (and quite hot, might I add) IPO of the home-grown online Beauty and Personal Care (BPC) champion Nykaa.


As Spark Capital succinctly put it (and I paraphrase), over the last decade, a lot of factors have aligned to create a conducive runway for growth for Nykaa. Factors like the rapid penetration of smartphones, affordability of data, adoption of digital commerce, the evolution of logistics ecosystem and Covid-led digital adoption.
Nevertheless, Nykaa got multiple things right--the category and channel (there weren’t many players in online BPC space), solved the right consumer problem (counterfeits and lack of foreign brands sans distribution) and did so without burning a lot of cash.
The consensus opinion from most reports appears to be along these lines: (a) it is a great business; (b) in a nascent industry with a massive runway; (c) it has cracked it in a way that competition never would be able to… and that too; (d) without burning cash.
Consequently, it deserves to be valued quite close to stratosphere.
Nykaa last raised capital in May 2020 at the valuation of $1.2 billion. One year later, by March 2021, news reports had started pegging IPO valuation at $3.5 billion. By June 2021, that rose to $4.5 billion. Most recently, one brokerage report suggested a one-year forward target of c$9 billion.
I think as Nykaa’s business model has benefitted from the ecosystem that evolved, its valuations have benefitted from the gush of liquidity fuelled by historically low interest rates.
And, whereas reams of pages are being dedicated to the business model, a discourse on how secondary market shareholders should value such businesses seems missing (publishing absolute valuations may not be permitted under law, the methodology to value it still is).
The venture capital model runs on probability rather than cash flows. A 10 percent probability of 50x returns over five years implies 33 percent CAGR… that math is easy.
For secondary markets: (a) cash flows; and (b) it's timing, take precedence. In developed economies, investments in new-age, hyper-growth, cash-burning businesses are treated akin to an investment in an ultra-high duration bond (a cash flow stream that will probably generate high cash flow after a long period).
So long as interest rates stay very low, secondary investors happily match their ultra long-term liabilities with investments in equity of such businesses. The moment interest rates rise above a certain threshold, these equity investments become untenable to fund. And, without continuous funding, the ‘probability’ of future cash flows dwindles.


I employ a similar model a brokerage might have used to arrive at the $9 billion valuations. But with 2 minor changes: one, I increase the cost of capital by 2 percent. And two, I lower terminal growth by 2 percent (both are quite conceivable and within the realms of possibility).
With these changes, the valuation falls to $5 billion, down 44 percent from the suggested $9 billion. Also, important to point out that the terminal growth rate kicks in after assuming that the annual FCF increases from negative $10 million currently to over $2 billion over the next two decades (yes, two decades is the explicit forecast period).
“Look at the mess the US economy and the Fed balance sheet is in,” you might say. “Why would the interest rates ever rise?” The short answer is, because economic activity is rising due to liquidity, not necessarily due to productivity gains. Also, a large part of supply disruptions may be permanent. And… it has happened before!
Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969 and despite the widespread belief of being ‘fiscally conservative’, he turned out to be one with “liberal ideas”. He continued to fund the war, increased social welfare spending, ran large budget deficits and supported income policy.
In 1971, he broke away from the gold standard, which devalued the USD. He fired the then Fed chair McChesney and installed Burns, and leaned heavily on him to keep rates low. “We will take the inflation, if necessary, but we can’t take unemployment,” said Nixon, recalls Burns in his book Secret of the Temple.
Initially, the Fed in the 1970s kept seeing inflation as driven by high crude oil prices (and therefore transitory, which also saw mankind invent the term ‘core inflation’).
Eventually, the US had both–high inflation and high unemployment. By 1973, inflation doubled to 8.8 percent, on its way to 12 percent later in the decade. It eventually took a new fed chair Volcker in 1979 to raise interest rates to double digits, which put the economy in recession.
Milton Friedman, later, eloquently said it in his book Money Mischief, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” To summarise, something will eventually give in and interest rates will rise.
It may not be now, not next quarter, but soon enough. And once that cycle starts playing out, a lot of business models will become questionable. With that, the valuations of all such businesses will be questioned.


Nykaa has created a phenomenal business out of hardly any investment. Even if the evolution of the ecosystem benefitted the company, one must credit it for getting almost everything right. Regardless of that, the question of valuation is still one for secondary investors.
Nykaa will do phenomenally well if it were to grow annual FCF from negative $10 million to over $2 billion over the next two decades (as that broking house seems to believe).
Even if that happens, minuscule changes in assumptions lead to dramatically lower valuations.
Given the frenzy surrounding the IPO market in general and Nykaa in particular, ours would likely come off as a minority opinion. I am aware of that.
Nevertheless, over the short term, following central banks helps make money. Over the long term, macros need to fall in order.
And, whereas macros for Nykaa might turn out to be just fine, those of several economies leave a lot to be desired. Sadly, that has an equal (if not higher) bearing on the valuation of these businesses than the macros of these companies themselves.
After reading this, while scratching your head, if your question for me is, “dude… I just want to make money on listing pop; will I?” I would do you one better and ask this in return, “if there is a huge runway ahead and the company isn’t burning cash, why the IPO in the first place?”
—Jigar Mistry is the co-founder of Buoyant Capital. The views expressed in the article are his own. Read his other columns here
Note To Readers

Disclaimers: Information in this letter is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as investment, tax or legal advice, or an offer to sell, or a solicitation of any offer to make investments with Buoyant Capital. Prospective investors should rely solely on Disclosure Document filed with SEBI. Any description involving investment examples, statistical analysis or investment strategies are provided for illustration purposes only – and will not apply in all situations and may be changed at the discretion of principal officer. Certain information has been provided and/or based on third-party sources and although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified; the investment managers make no express warranty as to its completeness or accuracy, nor can it accept responsibility for errors appearing herein.

next story