The markdowns are flowing thick and fast for Flipkart. There’s a lot of noise out there painting a picture of doom and gloom. But should valuations cause so much consternation? Isn’t there a larger story waiting to be told? In the last few days I trawled through old reports, news stories and information available in the public domain to make sense of the proceedings. I also had the good fortune of catching up with Haresh Chawla, Partner at India Value Fund Advisors, and a keen observer of and commentator on the Indian e-commerce sector.
The nuance that most media reports seem to have missed out is that it is not a simple question of whether Flipkart will get future funding or not. We need to dig deeper, because Flipkart will get funded – there aren’t too many Indian e-commerce players at that scale. The real issues are: (1) the kind of investor that Flipkart needs and (2) how soon that can happen.
There can be both a markup and a markdown. It is only a way of denoting the fair value of an asset or liability on your balance sheet. In other words, because market conditions change all the time, your books should present the truest picture possible. But it’s subjective and is further complicated by incomplete information or over-optimistic/over-pessimistic expectations.
If you are wondering why, simply look at the markdown exercises and the implied valuation after that.
Do you note that essentially none of them are in real agreement as to what the valuation of Flipkart should be? There is a huge deviation.
Now here is where a lot of people are running around either screaming doomsday or smirking on Twitter. In fact, some unnamed experts have been quoted as saying that if the valuation isn’t marked up soon, then Flipkart may have to accept a significantly lower valuation than its “preferred” $15 billion.
Let’s set the record straight. The figure $15 billion is obviously bigger than $5.5 billion, but to say that that is the “preferred” valuation would be wrong. It was what the market and investors expected based on the $10 billion of GMV projected by the company itself in June 2015. Mukesh Bansal, Head of Commerce, Flipkart, had told The Economic Times, “Flipkart will sell goods worth $10 billion during fiscal 2016, and nobody will be even half of that… There is not a shred of doubt based on all the market numbers we have today.” (You can read it here: https://goo.gl/FQKGy4 and here: https://goo.gl/a9UArZ)
According to Haresh, “It was expected and I have been saying it for some time. Flipkart announced that they would deliver a GMV of $10 billion and, clearly, on that expectation investors gave it a 1.5x multiple and valued it at $15 billion. But the company fell drastically short of its GMV target. The actual figure was only about $4 billion.”
In fact, it wasn’t only Flipkart that went wrong with its projection. Even the fund houses overestimated Flipkart’s GMV clout. To jog your memory – This Morgan Stanley report from early 2016 (Read that here: https://goo.gl/WWXLaa) said that in 2015 Flipkart, Snapdeal and Amazon together accounted for $13.8 billion in GMV or 83 percent of the market. That implied a market size of $16.6 billion. The report further said that Flipkart’s market share was 45 percent. That implied Flipkart’s GMV to be $7.5 billion – a gross overestimation, versus the $4 billion that Flipkart actually is said to have delivered.
Haresh pointed out one of his earlier peeves on the same issue, which he wrote about on Medium (Read it here: https://goo.gl/b1k7JW). At that time, he had noted, “Imagine when you extrapolate this error to the future. This has ended up muddying the waters, and misreporting the market share numbers.”
Let’s face it, valuations are a mix of many things – market environment, risk appetite, a fund manager’s own biases, the hot new trend, the fear of missing out, the multiples comparable companies are commanding, and of course, expected cash flows and margins. Of these, the last two are the most important and the most difficult to wrap your head around in an environment where you have to constantly burn money to stay in the game. So if an investor needs to justify why he/she is jumping onto the bandwagon he/she will constantly look at data that confirms his/her biases. Therefore, valuation is only a large headline figure; it’s not what decides your success.
Haresh concurred, “Currently, the world over, most of these companies are valued at 0.8-1.2x of GMV. Even with the markdown, Flipkart is still valued at the higher end of this range. But these valuation figures don’t reveal much. What matters is sustaining the business. The battle with Amazon will be fierce, but valuation has no relevance to Flipkart being among the top two in India.”
That’s the trick. Sustaining the business – according to data available in the public domain, while FY15-16 revenue grew 143 percent to about Rs 1,950 crore, expenses grew at an equally rapid clip of 128 percent from a much higher base. Expenses for FY15-16 were a little more than Rs 4,250 crore and losses more than doubled, to a shade over Rs 2,300 crore.
An analyst at a VC fund that I spoke to, on condition of anonymity, pointed out that for every incremental Rs 100 of revenue, Flipkart spends Rs 200. He was also quick to point out that the losses seen in the public domain don't add up to the “ostensibly” $2.5 billion (Rs 15,000 crore) that Flipkart is said to have lost or sunk into its business so far. Therefore, it would be safe to say that we don't know what lies waiting in Flipkart's balance sheet, which most people wouldn’t have seen.
But, enough said, ladies and gentlemen! This business is burning Rs 6.3 crore a day.
The management has been trying its best to cut its burn, focus on the right categories and rationalise headcount – though there have been many versions of exactly how many were let go during July 2016. (Read it here: https://goo.gl/XMXgJZ)
Haresh has a slightly different take. He feels Flipkart is doing a good job of it, given the tightrope it needs to walk. “Any drastic decisions to cut burn could result in a spiral down in marketshare making it even more vulnerable… The only option is to become lean and hold your fort at the same time – that would be the investors' mandate and they seem to be doing a good job of it," he said.
It is unlikely that investors will lose money. The sum total of money that has been invested in Flipkart till date is about $3.4 billion. To that extent, as long as the valuation doesn’t drop below that level there is no reason to be concerned, because early investors would be protected by special rights like liquidity preference.
Haresh noted, "As far as the VCs go, they are unlikely to 'lose' money. Liquidation preferences protect them from any value destruction that may arise. But the wait for exits will be long. However, this protection may not be available to investors who may have entered secondary deals with founders or very early-stage investors at the higher valuations.”
So, here goes: The '$15 billion' figure that people are talking about is not written in stone. It means that investors are taking a call that if Flipkart does exactly as well as they expect it to the maximum valuation they would give is $15 billion. It also means that they expect the future to be brighter than that $15-billion figure (because if someone were to invest at $15 billion valuation, they would expect much more than that in return, right?).
But, in the same breath, if the call on future valuation is not as bullish, there is nothing to stop a potential investor from adjusting it downward.
For example, if Flipkart’s GMV is $4 billion and one were to attribute a generous 1.5x multiple, then the valuation would be $6 billion. Sure, it would find buyers at that valuation, but it is unlikely that any of the previous investors would take any hit depending on the rights agreed upon during earlier funding rounds.
1) A control on costs – this is a given, so let’s park this for now.
2) The right kind of investor – strategic and very long term – someone whose investment horizon is a multiple of the 5-7-year typical VC horizon. That’s because Flipkart needs to take on the strategic money that Amazon has. Consider this: Amazon generated free cash flow (Amazon Annual Report: https://goo.gl/sYUIoz) of $7.3 billion for the year ended 2015 (that in itself is a multiple of Flipkart’s GMV). It can just dig in its heels in India, a market it can’t afford to lose.
Haresh said, “While they have taken steps to cut the burn, the biggest issue for Flipkart is who will buy? The company needs permanent capital on its balance sheet to take on Amazon, which has deep pockets and possibly infinite patience to win in India. When will this happen, on what terms and who it will be remains to be seen, because any investor with permanent capital, the likes of Walmart, Alibaba or JD.com, will not be interested in a minority shareholding – they will seek a path to control.”
But will Flipkart’s existing investors be willing to leave a clear path to control? They just might, because there’s definitely more to gain that way.
In a way Tiger bringing back Kalyan Krishnamurthy in a key role at Flipkart is evidence that the investors had a crisis of confidence in the team and hence are seeking to put the house in order. This allows them an opportunity to seek strategic sale with transfer of control. Remember, no VC, Tiger included, will be in it forever – they all have to provide their investors with an exit. (Also read: Saving Private Flipkart https://goo.gl/AIzsm6)
In the end, this series of markdowns has and will continue to cause a few flutters in the market, and may also affect the fundraising plans of smaller players. But the big boys may get by because there are enough strategic global investors interested in doing deals; and if they can get in after a series of markdowns, why not?
There’s huge merit in the space Flipkart occupies. We have barely scratched the surface of e-commerce in India. Flipkart is definitely India’s biggest calling card in the sector; it has inspired thousands of entrepreneurs and brought to the forefront a new way of doing business. But, Flipkart, on its part, will have to find ways to make its way deep inside customers’ wallets by constantly cross-selling and up-selling, while at the same time tightening its own belt.