A few days ago, a student wrote to us with a thoughtful set of questions. They were not asking for deal tips or valuation shortcuts. Instead, they wanted to understand who we are as investors and why we do what we do.

The questions were probing, especially around early conviction, capital discipline, downside management and how we think about success beyond returns. Answering them forced us to step back and articulate instincts that have been shaped over decades of investing, particularly in complex and long-cycle sectors.  An advantage of proprietary capital in a family office is that we don't feel pressured to show returns in 3-5 years and can stay patient with our capital allowing the founder to build the business the right way.

This piece is a reflection of those responses.

Early signals matter more than early certainty

In early-stage companies, certainty is a luxury. 

Cash flows, timelines, and even addressable markets are poor indicators at the earliest stages. What we look for instead is direction. Specifically, we ask: who is pulling the product forward?

To separate real validation from narrative momentum, we focus on costly signals. Anyone can collect pilot MoUs or letters of intent. What matters more is whether someone is willing to change behaviour: adopt a new workflow, allocate internal resources, take reputational risk, or push back constructively on the product.

 Noise is usually loud and fast. Real validation is slower, more specific, and often uncomfortable.

This is more nuanced for each industry - let's take healthcare. In healthcare, it is often an illusion. Some of the most reliable early signals we look for in healthcare include:

• Credible practitioners—doctors, hospitals, administrators, regulators, researchers—who are willing to engage repeatedly without being paid to do so.

• Founders who can articulate the problem from lived or deeply embedded experience, not from market reports or second-order analysis.

• Evidence of progress despite constraints—limited capital, lack of access, or regulatory friction.

We also tend to back founders who are building for the long term—not playing a short-term valuation game. One of our early investments reflects this clearly. We invested in IKS Health nearly 18 years ago and stayed invested throughout the journey. The company listed on the Indian stock exchanges last year. That outcome was a function of patience, alignment, and compounding not speed.

Capital discipline under Deep Uncertainty

Traditional valuation frameworks do not work at the earliest stages. That does not mean “anything goes.”

For us, capital discipline comes from position sizing and optionality—not false precision.

Before writing a cheque, we try to answer three simple questions:

• If this works, is the upside meaningfully large?

• If this does not work, can we still learn something important or retain optionality?

• Is this the right first cheque, or are we forcing conviction too early?

Strong conviction feels calm and patient. Over-commitment usually feels emotional, rushed, or justified by narratives around mission, timing, or fear of missing out.

One practical internal check we use is this: Would we still be comfortable with this decision if we assumed zero follow-on capital?
If the answer is no, we are probably ahead of ourselves.

Managing downside and surviving the J-Curve

We assume most early-stage investments will either fail or take much longer than expected. The portfolio is designed around that reality.

Downside is managed less through control and more through structure:

• Smaller initial cheques, with the ability—but not the obligation—to follow on.

• Avoiding ownership targets that force us to average up mechanically.

• Pacing capital deployment so we can learn from early decisions before scaling exposure.

The J-curve is unavoidable. What matters is making it survivable.

That requires staying liquid, intellectually honest, and not confusing early activity with real progress. Follow-on capital is earned through clarity, execution, and learning velocity—not just survival.

Looking beyond IRR

IRR matters, but it is not the only scorecard—especially for a family office–led platform with a long time horizon.

We also care deeply about:

• Whether founders make better decisions over time.

• Whether companies improve governance and capital allocation discipline as they scale.

• Whether we are building pattern recognition that compounds across the portfolio.

• Whether we are contributing to an ecosystem where more companies become fundable without excess capital.

Some outcomes do not show up in IRR immediately: trust built with founders, reputational credibility, or the ability to identify risks earlier in future investments.

One advantage of proprietary, family office capital is that we are not pressured to manufacture outcomes in three to five years. Patience allows founders to build businesses the right way.

Our Social Impact lens

Alongside core venture investing, we also operate a Social Impact arm with a very different intent.

Here, we back companies solving structurally important problems—education, healthcare access, livelihoods, affordability—where the primary objective is meaningful, measurable impact rather than short-term financial optimisation.

Two dimensions matter most to us.

Depth of impact
We look for real, on-ground change for the end beneficiary: lower costs, improved access, better outcomes, or reduced friction in broken systems. Vanity metrics do not count.

Scalability with sustainability
Impact without sustainability eventually collapses. While profit maximisation is not the goal, financial viability is non-negotiable. Models that depend indefinitely on grants or goodwill are fragile.

Capital discipline still applies—but the return framework is broader.

Healthcare: Not core, but intentional

Healthcare is not a core sector for us, but it is a deliberate one.

The downside of getting it wrong is high, and timelines are long. We therefore engage selectively, drawing on deep domain understanding and lived experience.

A healthcare opportunity becomes compelling when:

• The founder has deep, non-theoretical exposure to the problem.

• The solution reduces friction or cost in a way that aligns incentives across stakeholders.

• There is a credible path to early validation, even if full commercialisation is far away.

 We generally avoid binary science risk unless paired with exceptional teams and clearly defined milestones. What we prefer are healthcare businesses that resemble systems problems rather than pure R&D bets—where execution, distribution, and incentives matter as much as technology.
where execution, distribution, and incentives matter as much as technology.

The answer is simple, though not easy to execute:
We optimise for long-term alignment, disciplined decision-making, and the ability to stay patient when outcomes take time.