Nominated for “Best Alternative Investments Platform” for 2021 Benzinga Global Fintech Awards! Vote for us →

< Back to Podcast

The Process of Investing with Dr. Ronjon Nag

Mar 13, 2020 | 00:35:49 | E3

Swati Chaturvedi, Dr. Ronjon Nag

Learn the process of investing from a seasoned investor – Dr. Ronjon Nag, Director of MIT Alumni Angel Investors of Northern California as well as the Founder and Managing Director of the R42 Group. Dr. Nag is a serial entrepreneur (having sold his companies to Blackberry and Motorola), an active and prolific angel investor, as well as a lecturer in Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University. His newest venture – the R42 Group invests in AI, Science and Biotech, 5G and FinTech. Check it out at R42Group.com

Disclaimer: Propel(x) is a funding platform, not a Broker-Dealer. Securities are offered through Hubble Investments, member FINRA/SIPC and an affiliate of Propel(x). Private investments are highly illiquid and risky and are not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of future results. You should speak with your financial advisor, accountant, and/or attorney when evaluating private offerings. Neither Propel(x) nor Hubble Investments makes any recommendations or provides advice about investments.

This is Propel(x) podcast, discussion on investing in all things startups. Startup investing is highly risky. Please listen carefully to the disclosures at the end of this podcast.

Swati Chaturvedi: Hey, this is Swati and this is the Propel(x) podcast. So today we have with us, one of our experts, Dr. Ronjon Nag. Ronjon has extensive background in a number of things. He’s been an entrepreneur, he’s built and sold companies to Motorola and Blackberry, he’s an inventor with multiple inventions, he developed the first commercial handwriting recognition system, and there’s a long list of his inventions on his LinkedIn profile. Please do check it out. He’s an investor with a vast portfolio. He is the director of the MIT alumni Angels of Northern California. He’s a lecturer at Stanford in artificial intelligence; he teaches many courses. Some of them are short, so please do take the time to attend those. Ronjon is on the boards of multiple startups. He’s an advisor to the UC Berkeley Skydeck accelerator, and not to forget he has graced the cover page of Fortune Magazine. So at this time, I am running out of words to describe your vast experience, but welcome Ronjon.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Thank you, Swati. It’s nice to be here.

Swati Chaturvedi: Thank you. So today we’re going to be talking to you about how you do angel investing, some of the high points, some of the low points, and everything in between. So let’s start with this idea of the process itself. What we have covered in the past or shared with our listeners is that angel investing follows a process. There’s the art of sourcing great deals, there’s the art of evaluating startups, making that judgment, but also being thorough in your due diligence, and negotiating the key terms. And once you’re invested, it’s about managing your portfolio, working with the companies, and so on. So my question to you is: What is your process?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: The first step of the process is deal sourcing. I typically need to look at probably at least 30 companies before I make one investment. And so where do I get these investments from? Certainly, Propel(x) is one avenue. I’m a member of three angel groups, one of which I actually run as Swati mentioned —MIT Alumni Angels in Northern California, but also Cambridge Angels in the UK, TiE Angels in Silicon Valley. And maybe in Silicon Valley, it’s a little bit easier; you just literally walk down the street and the waiter will be carrying a business plan. I imagine it’s like Hollywood where they are carrying scripts. But in Silicon Valley, it’s not that hard to find businesses. What is hard is choosing the businesses. I invest typically in what my team and I phrase as ‘Tough Tech, difficult technologies. But I like to be able to invest best in anything I see. So, my current institutionalization of my activities is R42 Group. R for Ronjon but what’s 42? What’s that got to do with anything? It comes from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is the arts to life, universe and everything. So if I get an opportunity, it might not fit my exact tough tech sphere, but sometimes I like it and it might be a function of the founder, the function of early traction, and also a competitive advantage. So it may not be deep science. But most of my things are now following deep science because I like it when there are not very many competitors.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah, yeah got it. So you think deal sourcing is important to summarize. You have lots of deals, sources, including the waiter at the restaurant close to you; but more importantly, angel groups, online platforms, and others, right?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes. I like angel groups…and community groups. I always make my own decision, but I like to hear what other people think. So if other people don’t understand the opportunity or they’re passing on the opportunity, then I have to think why, why is that? Why do I still like it? And my little joke is that these forums stop me from making stupid investments. Sometimes they stop me from making good investments and vice versa. I still go ahead regardless. So you have to think for yourself. You definitely have to think for yourself.

Swati Chaturvedi: Okay, cool. So you said that there are all these aspects of sourcing, evaluating. Which of these is most important? Is it the sourcing? Is it the choosing? Is it the post-investment, working with the companies, where do you spend most of your time?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Well, I do early-stage investing, which I think maybe less the case if you’re doing late-stage investing. I really think that one has to be quite active, uh, with the companies. That is a de-risking factor if you can actually help the companies. And it’s not so much that I actually add value in a content or experience set in the field because they’re working on it 24 hours a day and I’m not. It’s more like a counselor to the founders, supporting their thoughts on what they should do. Sometimes they know what they want to do, but sometimes it can be quite difficult. And so it is just good giving them permission to go and do it. And as a result, just having that feedback and being involved is key to me. So companies that go silent afterward, usually..if they’re fundraising a year later, if they’ve been silent all year, usually they won’t get a check. That is not to say I want them communicating every week, but every few months they should be sending a note out and informing. Then you might be able to help them based on that. I can’t help them if they don’t tell me what’s going on.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. So in terms of actual investing, it sounds like you spend more time post-investment working with the company than pre-investment?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes. I think choosing the company’s key. But certainly in early-stage investing – series A or below, or you could even argue series B – you really need to de-risk. Can you actually help the company with your ecosystem and your network? And what I like to think of, I like to get companies into a stage where they don’t need me, and then you can put more time on those early-stage companies. If you have too many of those early-stage companies, then you can’t give them enough time and that increases your risk.

Swati Chaturvedi: Let’s talk about this idea of choosing your company. And before we go there, I want to give our listeners a little bit of context here in terms of what your return has been, and how successful you’ve been choosing your company. Would you care to share an estimated return with a lot of disclaimers?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: So..I’ve definitely had flameouts, definitely got zeros. But over time I probably have about 50 positions right now and in over 15 or 14..14 year period, it’s been in the range of a 10X give or take. Obviously, many of them are marked to market. In other words, they’re not exited yet. Some are exited. I’ve invested in my own companies that are not included in that valuation. But it’s using a number of factors to get that level and I can go into those if you want.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yes, let’s do that. So before we go there, I do want to give a disclaimer that the number you suggested 10X returns, firstly that is really high, congratulations. I know the benchmarks. But just to make sure that people understand; this is more of an estimate right now, it’s not a scientific methodology at this point. Like you said, there’s unrealized returns versus realized returns and it may be that the venture value falls, but at this point, that’s what the estimate is, right?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah. That’s key. The venture value might fall because I might make stupid bets as I get more confident, And so that increases risks. So you got to be very objective and see what could happen to you. But basically in the early stage, you should expect a high return.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. 10Xs.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah, I think that’s a high level. I think maybe Swati, you know. Is the average venture returns 6% or 7%, something like that?

Swati Chaturvedi: 20% IRR roughly.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: 20% or higher than that. You think higher than that? I thought that was more like what angels are gaining.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah, because they’re getting 28%. According to the Angel Capital Association study, angels are getting about 28% IRR.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Right. And you think ventures are getting 20? I think though they’re getting less.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah, that’s a possibility. So the Cambridge Associates, that’s the kind of representative number which is thrown around. And again, this is all anecdotal.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: All I know is that in another investing sphere like in the public market, 80% of all fund managers cannot be the index. That’s been going on for decades. But now we should probably double-check. We should double-click on those numbers. But I think venture in the 6%, 7% range, not much higher. I’ve seen some of the numbers. But there are a number of studies out there we could look at. Now, as you go to early-stage investing, you should expect higher returns. You can try and sort of reduce the risk, but as I said, getting a bit more involved if you think that actually reduces the risks. Some people when they get involved, actually increase the risks. So you’ve got to think, where is your value to them or to the company?

Swati Chaturvedi: So let’s come to this point. So what is the secret to your success? You said choosing; help us understand: What are the factors that go into choosing these companies that give these returns?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: So, as people say, its people, people, people. That’s definitely the case. I like companies with Ph.Ds. Some people say I’m a snob but, I like what comes with Ph.Ds because by definition they have spent years and years to hone a task in which they are the best person in their field by the time they’ve finished. It might be a very, very narrow area but by definition, they are—at that point in time or maybe a couple of years after their Ph.D.—they are the world’s expert in that topic. Then the second question is that topic; does it matter? Does anybody want that topic? And that’s one of the biggest risks of deep tech investing. Usually, there are not many competitors. Usually, you can say you’re the best person or the best team on that, but the biggest risk is market risk. Does anyone care? Does anyone actually care now? When I was doing cursive handwriting recognition 30 years ago, and telephone digit speech recognition 30 years…35 years ago, there weren’t any sockets to put them in, right? There were no pen computers or tablet computers that we have today. There were no screens to put them in. So you could argue that was 30 years too early.

Swati Chaturvedi: But you had a successful exit with that.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes, I did. And it’s sort of ducking and diving. Does the entrepreneur have – no matter how narrow their field is, no matter how early they are and early can be a good thing means there’s usually less competitors. New competitors don’t get funded. You know we did the mobile app store in 1999. And there’s probably one or two companies that were brave enough to think about that because we had the 10-year roadmaps of what phones were going to happen, what features they would have. And we could see they were going to have internet, they were going to have screens. But when we started, there were only two phones you could run apps on.

Swati Chaturvedi: Which were?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Motorola phone and Ericsson phone; Java phones. And so what we need to do is if you’re investing by definition, you are early, otherwise the big guys are already doing it and you want to go where the puck’s going to be, not where it is now. Ideally, it should be a three, four-year kind of horizon. Many of my companies end up being a 10 year horizon. So that’s the other dynamic waiting for 10 years. When I make an investment, I assume it’s a 10-year play. So you are going back to know what are the profiles of the company? Tough tech, difficult technology, no one has done. I like Ph.Ds. and by the way, that’s probably another stat to look up. I sincerely think that if you’ve got Ph.Ds, it is $10 million a Ph.D. versus, versus if you don’t have Ph.Ds, there’s only $1 million per Ph.D.

Swati Chaturvedi: For a non-PhD.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: For a non-PhD in the team. People say I’m a snob of course, but it’s just the fact of life. You can look at the exits out there on what they have achieved.

Swati Chaturvedi: So what we’re saying is tough technologies which basically have moats, right? So less competition by definitions, Ph.Ds who are experts in their field. And what you’re saying is you need to have an eye for the trend. You need to have a sense of where the market is going to be five years from now because investing in a startup by definition is a 5 to 10 year game.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Exactly. I think that you’ve put it very well. And that’s the bet. And so are you thinking… because usually these new technologies..people are not waking up saying, I need this because it’s so disruptive, they’re not even thinking about it. There are businesses that are like that, wouldn’t it be nice to have my food delivered instead of me going to the grocery store kind of thing.

Swati Chaturvedi: Food deliveries

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Those are big businesses but they’re not me. They are excellent businesses, but they’re not me. Both those industries have otherwise hyper-competition. Anyone can start those things.

Swati Chaturvedi: So would you consider that deep tech is ..how should I say..value investing of sorts where you know that there is significant IP so the value is not going to go down to zero?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: I wouldn’t say that. I think the value can go down to zero because if no one actually needs it or wants that technology, you think that the patent time frame is quite long but before we know it—if you think about 10 years, a big chunk of the patent time frame is actually eaten up, particularly if they started it before. So I think that the other dynamic is diversification; making quite a few bets.

Swati Chaturvedi: You have 50 yourself.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes, exactly. I think it’s only until I got 15, 16 bets that I sort of got comfortable that the portfolio was going to workout. And then the other dynamic is, have you got companies that can help each other?

Swati Chaturvedi: That’s interesting.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: You learn. With diversification, you don’t just do diversification for its own sake. Essentially, you’re paying your tuition fees with one company that teaches you how to evaluate another company in an adjacent space but not far range. And…as you get to know founders, you certainly get to know personalities and you get an idea of who will click and maybe they will click with you, but not someone else or vice versa. So if they don’t click with you, it’s just not right.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. I know that you are particular about terms. So tell me about what are the key terms. Firstly, do you think that terms are important, and what are the key terms that you look for when you’re making the investment? The reason I’m asking this question is that there is a widely held belief that it doesn’t matter what valuation you come up with if you’re in the right company. So in other words, if you’re an Uber, and you invested at 10 billion and it is now 50 billion, you still made money. So..there is that sense in Silicon Valley that valuation doesn’t matter. So I’m asking you, is it important, and what terms do you look for?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: It’s very, very important. I actually don’t hold to the belief, that it’s not just choosing the right sector. Because by definition, you’re entering new companies in new sectors that don’t exist, right? These sectors don’t exist, particularly in this pre-series A dynamic. And the old venture capitalists adage, “You set the price, I’ll set the terms.” So, I think as an investor, you need to think of both. And ironically, the riskier the company, I actually put bigger bets than the less risky the company.

Swati Chaturvedi: Why is that?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Because you can actually…the price you’d get in at, often riskier companies have lower valuations. And if you think you can add some value and you have the diversification portfolio effect, then you can actually get Xs returns. So now I’m doing deals as low as 0.5 million pre.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. I’m aware of that.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: I’ve done deals that a hundred million pre as well. But you have to evaluate them differently. At a hundred million pre, you may be more of passive investment and you might be looking at more of a… return that is a normalized return.

Swati Chaturvedi: More like a public market return.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah. And at the low end, you’re almost like a founder, if you’re going really, really well. These are like maybe a university project, they’ve not even started the company yet or it could be a recap. I do recaps where companies have sort of fallen on hard times, but it’s like the Warren buffet thing: Great companies, good products at bargain-basement valuations, it could be a time frame thing, Dotcom crisis, 2002, the financial crisis, 2008. It doesn’t matter who you are, the money is just not there, and so you get bargains waiting for those things. Or it might be a company in an area that’s out of favor.

Swati Chaturvedi: Okay. So what you’re saying is terms are important. You do need to look at terms, but valuation is not the single most important thing. You can do investments at different valuations, and you evaluate them differently.

Ronjon Nag: Right. You map it to their risk profile.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: But it’s much more difficult to get a 100X, at 10 million pre than at 1X.

Swati Chaturvedi: That’s true.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: In fact, that’s probably a dynamic. Every company, I think, can get to a hundred million dollar valuation; any company. A grocery store chain can get to that and…

Swati Chaturvedi: We need to probably disclaim this extensively.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Well, I think if they listen to the customer, clearly many companies don’t, if they adapt to the market, many companies don’t, and they are very dynamic, they can change and pivot into venture capital to a market that does get them to that level. You’ve seen market values even on the public markets, two to four times revenue, 30 times earnings. So what does that make? So maybe at the early stage markets, you can see deals at 10 times revenue. A lot of companies don’t have revenues, that pure IP. In the biotech area, it’s often where has the drug got to? Is it phase I, or phase II ? So there are different measurement dynamics. But if you can get to a 10 million revenue number, and if you can get to a few million in profit on that as well, which seems like a doable kind of approach, then it could get to a 100 million. Now, this is where I stop after as valuations get higher than 10, 15. Then you’re starting to get to public market multiples.
 

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. Then you really need that runaway success.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes, exactly. And then you’re trying to get into…

Swati Chaturvedi: The chances get low.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah, because how many unicorns are there?

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. There are quite a few of these days, believe me.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: But it’s not thousands. It’s not hundreds even.

Swati Chaturvedi: I think it’s only hundreds.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Hundreds. But your chance of getting one is…

Swati Chaturvedi: Yeah. So what you’re saying is valuation is important because the exit will happen at a multiple of the revenue and there are only so many companies who get to sell billions.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes, exactly. So getting to a hundred, I think is execution.

Swati Chaturvedi: In valuation or revenue?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: In valuation. Getting to a billion, you have to be in the right space, and because you’re investing five years early, your chances of getting that are lower. Now if you get that… there will be some, if you have a portfolio, some will get there, if you have 50, hopefully.

Swati Chaturvedi: So let’s say we’re looking at a company that got to a 100 million in valuation, chances are their revenues are in the $10 to $20 million range. Do you agree?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah. Unless it’s biotech, it might be zero.

Swati Chaturvedi: Unless it is biotech and it’s a whole different sector. So the point is that not that many companies get over $20-$25 million in revenues by the time they have an exit, and so you have to consider that when you’re thinking of the valuations.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah.

Swati Chaturvedi: Okay. Cool. Great, I mean..we have done quite a bit. We do have a few minutes more remaining. So I want to talk to you about stories of your investments. Tell me a story of an investment that worked out great, and tell me a story of an investment that was the worst investment you ever made.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Well, actually the greatest investment is my own company.

Swati Chaturvedi: Well, of course.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: That’s a good investment. The investment in my own company was $500, not $500,000. $500. This was 30 years ago and we sold it for $12 million and there were three of us.

Swati Chaturvedi: Well, of course, but the entrepreneur obviously takes the greatest.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: We only put $500 at risk.

Swati Chaturvedi: Sorry?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: We only put $500 at risk.

Swati Chaturvedi: That’s the opportunity cost.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: So I think in half seriousness, that’s one of the things if you’re doing early stage. You might start off as a relatively passive investor. But these entrepreneurs are so charming; before you know it, they’ve got more money out of you, and then they’ve got you doing work for them. That might be your biggest wins where you actually become a bit more part of the company. So as you are investing, you might not be thinking as much like that. But that those might be kind of..sort of..interesting plays later on. If you’re are one of the first investors in a runaway success, then you end up being on the board and you get a few more shares for being on the board; all those kinds of things can multiply returns immensely. And I think we had a good investment in Intellivision..

Swati Chaturvedi: Which exited.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Which exited at Propel(x) company.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yes, thank you.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: And MIT Angels Company came through and they were quite old at the time, I think seven or eight years. But basically, the founders owned it, but they needed a bit more working capital cash. That was an example where they actually had revenues and the valuation was reasonable. And it was in deep tech; face recognition and stuff like video analysis. Quite a few MIT angels put money in; I think quite a few people in Propel(x) put money in. So that’s another dynamic. I found that if the wisdom of the crowd does exist, if other people put in more, it does seem to be….

Swati Chaturvedi: That goes at odds with what you said a little bit earlier, you have to think for yourself.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: You do have to think for yourself despite that, because I’ve been in deals where the wisdom of the crowd has been wrong and it’s not been the first time. I typically am in this first round; either the first check or the first round. Usually, people are very nervous about that. But if you look at it from a portfolio effect, one can build confidence. So Intellivision, just to finish off that story, they got acquired by Nortech, which is a $10 billion company. We got a good return. It was relatively not too stressful, and the VCs came in.

Swati Chaturvedi: And in a short time.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yeah, two and a half years. So that was pretty good. And..you probably want disaster stories as well.

Swati Chaturvedi: Yes.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Let’s see… disaster stories. Probably the company shouldn’t be named. I’ve got quite a few disaster stories and you should sort of internalize them in your own mind. One was an electric airplane company and the valuation was actually very reasonable. You know, it was very low, it was quite low. It was in the UK. Well, there was sort of a short hop airplane thing. The plane was on for £40,000. So it was just quite cheap for a plane.

Swati Chaturvedi: Oh yeah. Even if it’s pounds,

Dr. Ronjon Nag: It was 40,000 British pounds. And they were highly regulated industry, though in Europe is not as regulated as one of the place. But they just couldn’t get the follow on financing. You know, I do go to the UK quite a lot. I am British. That’s how I met the company, tried to help them…

Swati Chaturvedi: But it was capital intensive.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Capital intensive..Exactly.

Swati Chaturvedi: So they shut down?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: They shut down. Yes.

Swati Chaturvedi: How long after you invested?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Three or four years. Yeah.

Swati Chaturvedi: So there was a bit of time after you invested.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes. I didn’t think they would shut down within months, even though they look like they would shut down. But that comes with the territory. I think for all these companies, early-stage companies, it’s not as stressful as being the founder. But it can be stressful because you’re living vicariously through them, both on the ups and the downs. Of course, that’s what makes it fun as well. You can make fun and…

Swati Chaturvedi: Well, it’s called higher risk.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: It’s a high risk. You could argue that if you’re putting in something that gets you returns, public market returns are not going to be as high on average. That’s what an investor is always thinking about. Can I just put it in Apple stock and not worry about all these things?

Swati Chaturvedi: Or Amazon store.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Or Amazon Store. And by the way, after I sold my first company, I probably could have put it in Apple stock. Apple was about to go bankrupt in those days. I’m not sure if you remember. But they were about to go bankrupt. The stock was 20 or 15 or something like that. And I probably could have just put all my money in Apple stock and not done any entrepreneuring or not done any investment and made almost the same amount in 20 years. But I wouldn’t have been clever enough to choose that, I would be scared because they were about to go bankrupt in 1995 or so.

Swati Chaturvedi: That was important. Right? I mean, they could have gone bankrupt.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: In tech, a question I always ask is: In a hundred years from now, who’s going to exist, Google or McDonald’s? I usually say McDonald’s.

Swati Chaturvedi: That’s an interesting question. I haven’t asked that question. But I think McDonald’s will exist and they will still be selling burgers. Maybe healthier burgers, beyond burgers. But the point is, McDonald’s will still be there, people still need food. So one last question: So you told me a story of a company that did well. You told me a story of a company that flamed out. What do you think separates the two?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: So I like one that comes near me. I do go to Britain, but I’m based here in Palo Alto. I think one of the things was capital intensity.

Swati Chaturvedi: But all big techs companies are capital intensive.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: No, I wouldn’t say that. In my own company, it was basically in the algorithm space. It’s just pure mathematics.

Swati Chaturvedi: But things like drugs and medical devices…

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Well, my investments is in Helix, which is trying to turn that upside down. We’re trying to use machine learning to invent drugs and invent a drug for less than a million dollars.

Swati Chaturvedi: The point being that some of them can be capital intensive.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes. I’ve got some biotech ones, where there’ve been heavy raisers and the dilution, as a result, has been heavier.

Swati Chaturvedi: Do you care about the dilution?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Yes I do. If you’re looking at it at pure mathematical return point of view, which is what you’re getting in at. But also as the preferred overhead; you say, here is a company that has raised a 100 million dollars, which usually means that it has to sell for more than a 100 million dollars before any people get any money. And so it’s not always a good thing.

Swati Chaturvedi: Raising lots of money, contrary to popular belief.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Exactly.

Swati Chaturvedi: I agree. So capital intensity separates the two, what else?

Dr. Ronjon Nag: I think, they had some Ph.Ds actually.

Swati Chaturvedi: So PhD is…

Dr. Ronjon Nag: PhD is definitely flavor. And the distance—I can’t meet them as often. And I think that…

Swati Chaturvedi: Isn’t it that one company only had revenue whereas the other one was far from it? The risk was much higher.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: That’s right. So this is the thing in choosing one out of 30, you can just know with attractive product, attractive technology, one is often very tempted and I’m the first person to say, yes, I’m tempted to go into it just because I love the science or the technology. But if you wait for that one in 30, where it’s got not just the science, not just the technology, but it’s also got revenue and it’s at a reasonable price and it’s got customers, they do exist. You may think they don’t exist, but they do exist. And so, that’s the difference between a disciplined investor and probably an average investor.

Swati Chaturvedi: Okay. Well, that was great. Thank you, Ronjon. This was a long conversation, but thank you very much. And with that, it’s a wrap. We’ll be with you again, I think another time because we’re around you quite a bit. And with everyone else as well. Thank you very much for the conversation today.

Dr. Ronjon Nag: Thanks for having me.

Disclaimer: Propel(x) is a funding platform, not a Broker-Dealer. Securities are offered through Hubble Investments, member FINRA/SIPC, and an affiliate of Propel(x). Private investments are highly illiquid and risky and are not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of future results. You should speak with your financial advisor, accountant, and/or attorney when evaluating private offerings. Neither Propel(x) nor Hubble Investments makes any recommendations or provides advice about investments.

Content Disclaimer: Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. The investments mentioned in this podcast (if any) are illiquid and there is no guarantee that an exit strategy will come to pass.