To IPO or not to IPO?!
Avnish:
Personally my view have a billion, 2 billion and 5 billion threshold. If I had the choice I would not go -- I would keep delaying until I can hit 5 billion plus predictably based on fundamentals, 2 billion is the minimum above which one should go public. And frankly if you ask me it’s been a learning not just looking at the IPOs that have happened but in talking to the various stakeholders. Wait till 2, ideally get 5.
Rajinder:
Hi, and welcome to Matrix Moments. My name is Rajinder and Avnish, Vikram, thank you for joining me on this podcast. Today’s topic, To IPO or not to IPO, that is the question. Welcome, both of you. So we’ve discussed IPOs before in earlier podcasts both on Infinity entrepreneurs and those separate one that we did, Vikram. I know all three of us are engaged in conversations with founders about this topic, many of them are thinking about taking their companies public so this playbook is something that's a live discussion with them and I just thought it would be good to give all folks who listen to Matrix Moments more color on this topic especially this topic as companies go on to infinity in their journey. It’s an important discussion, why don’t we start with you, Avi.
Avnish:
Thank you for having us here again, Rajinder. We’re here in our Delhi office, excited to be here. Look, this is in some ways one of the most exciting topics we can discuss, sadly I’ve been doing it for 16 years this venture business, all of you guys are coming up on a decade or more. What is the one thing that has held us back as a venture ecosystem whenever we talk to our investors or we talk to our US counterparts the ultimate end game of investing in a startup is always going to go public. So congratulations to DP, we met him yesterday. You know, he started this trend. So digital IPOs in India were few and far between, we have to give credit to Sanjeev Bikhchandani, Naukri First, MMT along the way a few others Just Dial and so forth. But if you were to say true Indian digital IPOs coming more as a pattern it’s only happened in the last three years and Zomato started it. So it’s very exciting, so if you look at the US a number of VC firms take pride and what percentage of NASDAQ’s market cap is getting created. We don’t have parallel exchanges for technology companies but we should also take pride. At some point we’ll discuss the number of 5 billion dollar plus Indian companies listed on the Sensex, it’s not many and hopefully digital will penetrate deeply into it. Also if you think about it what are the largest companies in the world and how many of them are private. And I was just chatting with Vikram earlier and he gave me the data so I didn’t have to look. I knew KOK Industries, supposedly Cargill, Ikea, they’re very, very few. So there must be a reason and hopefully – but at the same time IPOs have not performed that well so is it a good thing, not a bad thing. So hopefully given that we had discussed this infinity entrepreneurs journey this is the ultimate destination that a lot of entrepreneurs want to go to. The objective of this podcast is to spark a discussion to give our perspectives. We were involved in an IPO recently and you and I have done more work also so that's really the objective here to kind of frame both the positives and some of the issues to think through but make no mistake going public is the ultimate dream for most entrepreneurs.
Vikram:
Like Avi said I think we have to be grateful that now we can consistently discuss this topic.
Avnish:
And we’re going to have a discussion.
Vikram:
Yes. And because we now have several companies which are at IPO scale and profitability. So now every founder, company, stakeholders in that company need to make very thoughtful decisions on whether to go IPO or not and what the ultimate exit path is for themselves. We went through this journey with Five Star, the company went public in November last year and it was arguably the most IPO ready company that we’ve been part of from a compliance and governance perspective and the way the company was performing it’s been IPO ready for maybe two years. And even for them it was a pretty tough journey I would say, not easy journey going public. So everybody needs to make conscious choices and we’re just seeking to frame this conversation. Is going public the right choice for you, when, and how do you think through this.
Rajinder:
So let’s pick the first one which is -- is going public the right choice for you. So what are the pros and cons of going public?
Avnish:
So, you know, I was a banker at Goldman, right, and in the dotcom bubble days everybody was going public. But at the same time, at that time, the reason to go public was you were getting crazy valuations. And I remember this discussion internally and most importantly with one of the founders that we were taking public, EBay was profitable and went public in that period also. And the answer from the founders and that's how you should think about it, the biggest pro is permanent capital, it is the most permanent capital you get on your balance sheet, it gives you a lot of flexibility, valuations run up and down, that's fine, gives you a currency potentially for acquisitions but I would actually say permanent capital, permanent capital, permanent capital because I think it takes precedence over almost everything else. But outside of that it’s a great branding effect and especially if you look at the digital companies in India they’re actually in the consumer cases well-known brand but even in the business B2B businesses they’re well-known companies, in Fintech they’re well-known companies. So I think it just takes the branding up to almost the retail level. Think of the largest conglomerate I think they still are in India it was built on the back of an IPO. So Reliance and Dhirubhai Ambani he created the equity culture. So I think it’s very ingrained there. And of course, liquidity for the stakeholders. So I think those are all the positives.
Negatives are the question is whether the negative is a perceived negative or a real negative. So the perceived negative is do you get a shot at taking moon shots, risks. The other day we were interviewing Jay Shroff of UPL he says it has never stopped him. We were speaking to DP at Zomato he says it hasn’t stopped him. Look at Google or Facebook they put out letters saying don’t budget us on quarters so I think there is some truth to it in terms of having more quarterly pressure but the question is maybe you can manage around it, there is more regulatory “overhead” so is that overhead or is that good for you because it forces a certain type of governance who knows. And I will tell you for sure the public market investors currently in India, maybe US tends to be a little bit different, are very narrowly focused on the return on equity as a metric. So therefore we’ll come to this topic later, profit focus companies do better. That I think is definitely something that should be factored in.
Vikram:
So on the pro side for me permanent capital and double clicking it also gets you a wide base of investors so it’s domestic institutions, foreign institutions, retail investors, HNIs, so you can actually build a very wide base of capital and you create this everlasting liquid currency for everyone involved around you whether it’s your investors, whether it’s your employees, whether it’s potential acquisitions you're just highly liquid and everybody believes owning this currency is a good thing for them. What does that mean, it reduces the friction for you to raise resources. Even debt, suddenly you can raise much faster, you can acquire companies much faster, you can acquire talent much faster. So you just reduce the friction for raising resources that your company needs. And double clicking on what Avi said on brand the trust inflects in you because everyone knows that going public is a big deal and then they start trusting you more, customers, regulators, employees, everyone starts trusting you more so they give you a little bit more and potentially your opportunity set can increase because people trust you more.
On the con side I think it’s living that public company journey, what does that mean from a operating perspective public markets reward predictability first. So can I extend the past to the future and I can just predict it year on year both on growth as well as profitability and is that de-risk, is that predictability de-risk which means your talent, your succession plans, your compliance and governance need to be of the highest standards because then the public market believes that you're de-risk when you're projecting that predictability. On the moon shots I think it just needs to be part of the company narrative where Google and Facebook it’s part of their narrative. This is who we are, this is what we do. And as long as you're communicating it and it’s factored into that predictability then its fine.
Finally, you know, I was talking to a founder and he was talking about mental health which is once you go public can you live with this daily report card, with narrow metrics and does that affect some of the decisions that you take. And he was saying that like it or not that daily report card and some of the noise that comes into the company will affect some of the decisions that you take and you need to be prepared as a founder, as a top team that this is going to affect us. And so I asked Nithin Kamath and I called him up a day ago because I saw him go on record somewhere and somebody asked him will you go public and he said “not now” because I'm not ready for the predictability journey because our business is not as predictable, it goes with the market. And second actually very thoughtfully he just said I do have a good use of proceeds if I raise this capital and HDFC Bank they just come in like clockwork every 15-18 months and only raise as much money as they know they need and the use of proceeds. So because he has such a nuanced view I would say he has my money because he’s just thoughtfully thinking about whether the go public or not.
Avnish:
Yeah, but I guess he can get away with it because he has a highly profitable business and I would argue one of the other points he’s made publicly is that his business is cyclical.
Vikram:
And I think he’s building one of the lasting institutions in financial markets and as a lasting institution at some point of time you’ll have to go public. So we’ll see how that plays out.
Rajinder:
So let’s flip this from the founder view to the investor view. We’ve met a bunch of market stakeholders who are like institutional investors in public markets and for them the size of the company does matter. So what is the right stage for a company to think about going public, what is the right size of an IPO? We’ve seen IPOs which are a few hundred crores in tech we’ve seen a couple of IPOs which were a couple of billion dollars as well. What’s the ideal size of an IPO?
Avnish:
And I think on this one if you ask five people you’ll get ten views and this is where we have all collectively spent some time, but I do think we should frame it for the audience in terms of just the depth of the public markets. So in India large cap is 5 billion plus, I think it’s 50,000 crore, somewhere in that range. Small cap tends to be – mid cap tends to be the 2-5 and then less than 2 is the small cap. I think people should realize very importantly and I think this is where at least I don’t have two different views, it’s very clear. Being public with an illiquid stock is worse than being private and not being public. And typically when you're listing on the small exchanges you're illiquid. So you have all the baggage of being public and none of the advantages of being public. So to me if you ask me and we did this analysis, I think 5 billion dollar plus listed companies on the BSE are what, 50-60, something like that. 5 billion dollar plus private digital companies are public plus private digital companies are --
Rajinder:
Between 15-20.
Avnish:
20 plus.
Rajinder:
5 billion plus I think it’s more like 15.
Avnish:
Okay. So point is those valuations may not even hold in the public markets so it just gives you some perspective. Personally my view have a billion, 2 billion and 5 billion threshold. He and I have debated this, we’ve been debating this with some founders and it depends on I guess Vikram can cover whether you have that choice. If I had the choice I would not go -- I would keep delaying until I can hit 5 billion plus predictably based on fundamentals, 2 billion is the minimum above which one should go public. And frankly if you ask me it’s been a learning not just looking at the IPOs that have happened but in talking to the various stakeholders. VCs we’re all excitable and we were excited about pushing our companies to go public but I think now the view is a bit more nuanced. Wait till 2, ideally get 5.
Vikram:
So let me deconstruct this more bottom up and define what is float and what is liquidity and these are two different things. So the float is if you go public with an offer for sale plus primary of 10 percent then that's the initial float and by the way that's the minimum regulatory requirement for you to be publicly listed. And then liquidity is all this buyers and sellers can find matched trades or transactions and so these are two different things. Now I think the minimum threshold amount is roughly 200 million to get the right set of investors interested in you.
Avnish:
Just picking up on that the 10 percent is above 10,000 crores market cap, below that is 25 percent float, right?
Vikram:
No, so it’s 10 percent and then you will get a defined period I think it’s 3 years to get to the 25 percent float, actually everybody needs to get to that 25 percent float in that 3 year period. So the minimum threshold amount at which you can get like a foreign institutional investor interested is roughly 200 million. So think of a fund manager managing billions if they’re not at least investing 15-20 million in your IPO then they’re not paying attention. And by the way the analysts are not paying attention if the institutional investor is not paying attention. So 200 million, 2 billion market cap 10 percent that’s why that sort of triangulates that 2 billion is sort of the initial.
Avnish:
But that's only for one investor who have got in 200.
Vikram:
So that's the minimum float. Now let’s plate this out in terms of liquidity, let’s say it’s 2 billion market cap, 10 percent you raise 200 million in the IPO and you're trading let’s say 30 million a month. You are pulling out the daily trades and they go between a million to like 55 million on a monthly basis. And so that's actually a pretty good liquidity in terms of trades. But what if you have like 30 percent of your shareholders who need to sell in the next two years and they need to exit. That means let’s say if it’s another 15 percent that means you need to have another 200-300 million of demand waiting so that when they sell there’s enough demand to buy them. So you're likely to need almost the same amount of work to create that demand after you go public as you did in the IPO which is why I think if you put that all together you actually end up with it’s better to go public at a larger valuation. Stay private, go public at a larger valuation where you're solving for both the float as well as the liquidity. And going to market with call it a 15-25 percent float that you’ve built over a short period of time not saying that's the right IPO size but you build that liquidity of over a short period of time because then you're sort of more stable and you’ve created the liquidity around your company and around your stock.
Rajinder:
And just for everyone’s benefit we did look at a few of the numbers, a bunch of the digital IPOs now including Five Star which went public last quarter the size of the IPO would have been roughly 10-15 percent of that would have been the float and then the liquidity I guess that's the position that gets built up over the next few years and in most of those cases they’ve actually not crossed the 25 percent mark that you mentioned.
Avnish:
I guess one question is then so just so that our point of view is out there if you have enough liquidity in the private markets stay private forever?
Vikram:
Well, the extension of that argument is to stay private forever but at some point of time you're going to tap out.
Avnish:
I think that's the key. Typically above 500-600 million it seems like a private round in this environment. Earlier you could get away with a billion in the private rounds.
Vikram:
You're going to tap out and I think the pressures of delivering liquidity internally to your employees and investors are just going to get bigger and bigger as it gets to billions of dollars and at that point of time you have to go public and I think these companies are also becoming institutionally or systemically important and regulators in the world at large will want these companies to go public.
Avnish:
And actually thinking about what’s happened in the US over the last 2-3 years if you look at Uber, Airbnb, Stripe, Stripe just had this incident where they said so the counter argument or the argumented was companies are going public too early, too much value is being left on the table, let’s stay private forever . And when a bunch of these companies realized that they missed the peak of their growth cycle fundamentals, whatever and went public when the narrative was turning against them, it’s the worst mistake. So you might as well leave some money on the table than unless you can stay private forever which like you said may not be possible.
Second we should talk about the Stripe incident, right, so they had given out stock and I don’t know the technicalities but net net they were forced to do a private round at a lower valuation because of this tax bill that would come because of the – so I think being too cute about it is also not a good idea.
Rajinder:
Staying with the investor view for a minute I think if you look at the IPOs that have happened in the recent past actually it’s all IPOs, it’s not just digital IPOs but generally IPOs as an asset class have not performed as well in the recent past. And we may be very excited and we’re very looking forward to a bunch of these companies going public but they don’t seem to have created as much value as folks expected. So what gives?
Avnish:
Well, so we’ve discussed this even in the environment podcast, right, so this measurement period has a problem. And the measurement period problem is that it was a time of zero interest rates. In the time of zero interest rates growth was valued over profitability, you know, classic terminal value low discount rates and therefore a lot of companies went public that would not be able to go public in different environments. And if they don’t have path to profitability then they would go down, there’s negative NPV of their cashflows. So I actually think that current environment is a more normal environment. Profits like we’ve discussed before US markets and India markets tend to be a little bit different, remember we’ve always had high interest rates US has not. US goes up and down, therefore Indian markets are always rewarded ROE, return on equity and profits more than growth. That's just how it’s – but that's the nature of the economic structure. So in my view if you're not profitable or not showing profitability in a very near figure of time don’t go public. First of all with respect to the IPOs that have gone public the notional valuations of tens of billions was notional, these are very large companies, we should be very proud of them. And we should be very long then if we could we would buy some of these stocks, they’re 5 billion dollar plus companies which has historically taken greater than $5 billion market cap which has historically taken forever and we have many of them. So we should be very proud of that. But at the same time recognize that just like their counterparts in the real world of measure on return on equity and profits they’re also going to So therefore take your time, make sure that the other thing learning in the public markets is that you need predictability in the business model. We were just chatting with a founder the other day and he said my margin is expanding rapidly and then we were talking to the bankers they’re like that's a very bad thing because public markets don’t want to forecast things that they cannot see in the history. We as venture and growth investors do that, that's a very big deal. So the stability in the business, if you have market leadership, stability in your business model, profitability please, you know, that is probably the filters. But for the ones that have gone public and not traded please factor in the environment and also see how some of them are the best ones are turning around.
Rajinder:
So I was reading in the paper today there seems to be another announcement from SEBI, regulators are also rapidly kind of evolving their own view of this landscape. There’s one topic around promoter classification, there’s another topic around confidential IPO filings. All of these are like things that founders have to navigate like in real time so, Vikram, you’ve actually seen this first hand. What is the skinny on this topic?
Vikram:
So I’ll start with saying overall SEBI has been very progressive and has enabled this ecosystem where these IPOs are now possible. I think three years back a bunch of us in the venture ecosystem including myself we signed something where we lobbied the Indian government to let our companies go public in the US and we’re not doing that anymore. Why, because it’s possible to go public in India. So what changed, SEBI listened to us and they created a structure where unprofitable companies can go public, the lock-ins weren’t as onerous and you could exit in a more consistent and predictable manner. And so we saw many IPOs in 2021 as a result. Now we all as market participants going to the public market for the first time for many have to act in the right manner and we have a responsibility to do so as an ecosystem. And as SEBI is seeing varied participant actions they’re tweaking to enforce the right vehicle so they changed the offer for sale in unprofitable companies now. They changed the ancle lock-in extensions because people were trying to make a very quick buck. The valuation methodology they wanted it to be shared with them. Now I think SEBI is just going to consistently tweak till they see all of these market actions coming together. Now the news that companies with relatively significant founder holdings should be classified as promoter managed where there’s somebody’s neck on the line versus professionally managed, I think they’re just trying to make sure they’re enforcing responsible behavior from a very large founder group which has been responsible for the company for some period of time. And that's I think part of this enforcing responsible behavior. I think there’s a new thing which we’re quite excited about which is the confidential IPO filing where the DRHP is not visible to the public but is visible privately only to the regulator and no one’s really gone through the window so we’ll see how some of this evolves but it could be a game changer if implemented correctly. Earlier just for context once you filed you had specific windows in which you would have to update the audited financials and then a small period of time where you had almost a gun to the head that you have to go public. And so if you didn’t go public in these windows that emerged then you were tainted and even if your business was doing well, the company was doing well, because you were tainted the power would shift to the market and you would have to pay a toll to go public and having been through some of that process I would say it’s just not ideal at all for the company where the power shifts to the market. I think having these confidential IPOs maintains the balance of power because you can just go public when you want and you control your destiny or lot more. Now this will mean a higher bar from SEBI on scrutiny and rightly so, so again I would just say SEBI is making sure this ecosystem can take these companies public while maintaining the interest of all public market especially retail investors so overall I think steps in the right direction.
Avnish:
So, you know, just adding to one point that first maybe Vikram just explaining confidential IPO and how that differs is that just that the way it benefits the founders is you don’t have to declare or give out a lot of confidential information and only when you're really ready to trigger do you have to give that out and therefore update and go public. Right, so your kind of accelerated your process without being out with all the information that you don’t want.
Vikram:
For public domain and while sharing it with SEBI.
Avnish:
The other part on this regulator is by definition regulation and rules are for bad actors, let’s not be bad actors. It’s truly a responsibility and I believe that there have been at various stages, right, so you don’t want to get caught up in that. I think we have a very progressive regulator, if I look at how many things have changed for the positive in the last three years it’s just unimaginable versus the previous 15 years.
Rajinder:
No, but I think the context has also changed, right, like if you look at IPOs historically they would be more driven by traditional businesses which would have a lot more domestic institutional investors building the book. Here now you have digital companies going public where there’s a lot of foreign institutional investor interest as well, these companies are also larger so the issue sizes are larger. You do need some of the FIIs to come in and FIIs are linked to global markets which are unpredictable and so because the window is short and unpredictable you don’t actually know. For example many founders who can go public in 2023 don’t actually know if the last two quarters of this year are going to be a positive environment in which to go public or not and therefore this is a good thing.
Avnish:
Just taking the thought further on this FIIs maybe we should talk with – we weren’t planning to but we should talk about the fact that earlier Vikram alluded to we used to petition to go public on the overseas, so what’s changed and what changed over the last 2-3 years.
Rajinder:
I think with a lot of these companies getting to scale in size what’s changed is that most of the global fund managers actually are very active in Indian markets, they’re very active in the Indian IPOs, it’s the same investor set, it’s the Fidelity’s, it’s the Blackrocks, it’s the CPPIBs, the Wellingtons, all of the same names that you would find subscribing to issues on the NASDAQ are also subscribing to issues in India.
Avnish:
And during Covid the desks more or less changed. They used to have an Asia desk versus a US desk and then Covid just came.
Rajinder:
That's one and many of them have actually also separately opened up offices in India because the Indian market is now I guess we’re on path to being the third largest economy and that seems a matter of time and so it’s a key market from a public market standpoint. So shifting gears a little bit to process assuming timing is right, you're on the regulatory clearance etc does it sound like if you need to go public you just hire the best bankers and go out there and get them to run the process and make it easy.
Avnish:
As a former Goldman Saks banker, yes, as a former founder, no, as a VC somewhere in between. Look, absolutely need to get the best bankers, there is no doubt to the value they add to the process. But do not assume that public markets are any different in selling than private markets, still the founder is selling. The banker will facilitate but still the founder is selling. I would argue at least our experience I think collective experience here that 2-3 mistakes have been made which people may not – the same founders who would do it right in the private markets may not think of it in the public markets. Our best founders, the experienced founders, they typically we see them building relationships with investors over many quarters in some cases couple of years and both sides tracking performance. I think this IPO process has been mistaken in India and by the way in the US it is a little bit like what I'm just about to say but it works there, and I think Indian context is different. It’s a very short transactional process and I don’t think that’s the right way to do it. And by the way it’s not that what we think matters it’s what our – we have gone and met people and we’ve learnt that from the investors saying you guys are treating us a little bit too transactionally. Also see it from their point of view, they have alternate uses of their capital in profitable companies that they understand well. That in India are still also going pretty well. So I think it is up to the founder to and it is up to the ecosystem players like us and we’ve taken on that responsibility to go and “educate” because this is a new asset class and it’s a “sunrise sector”. So it’s our job the different constituents are domestic institutional investors, by the way they had a beef that when the markets were good, interest rates were low foreign liquidity was flowing nobody would go and spend time with them and the reality is that there was actually a line that we need the obviously the other category is foreign institutional investors you need them to take you public but you need the domestics to keep you public because when the price is going down they’re the ones who step in. But this wasn't fully understood and so they were ignored. There are gatekeepers in this ecosystem also, there are people who we watch on CNBC. These are people who are opinion leaders and they’re very thoughtful opinion leaders and so again it’s our job to at least give them all the data so they can form a thoughtful opinion. HNIs and retail matters especially if you're a consumer brand, I would argue in most cases almost all brands and these gatekeepers can influence them. Believe it or not in some of the cases friends and family matters, because when you're talking about the float and liquidity at the levels you're talking about a few million dollars of trading on a day can make a difference. And so it is important to I think founders so if one were to just step back founders should be thinking about this two years before they want to go public, 1-2 years. Spending a week, a quarter in Mumbai because that's where the hub is and that's where we are and that's where the money is made not in Bangalore. So, they should be spending a lot of time marketing and educating and I think they will find it a very rewarding experience also because the quality of questions is very different from what is asked by us and by the market investors. Anything else to add?
Vikram:
The only additional point I would make is that when us as investors we see a whole bunch of investment opportunities every week, they see many times that on a weekly basis so you need to have a very clear simply understood narrative about what the company does and how it actually makes money. And you have to have like really the 2-3 drivers of your company, and you need to be able to explain it clearly and I think that's what public markets need.
Rajinder:
Yeah. Overall it sounds like between timing, process, stakeholders, bankers, sounds like a lot of work. And then this is just going public, then being successful in public markets sounds like even more work, should private companies just stay private?
Vikram:
No one said this was easy.
Avnish:
No, but you sound like some of the younger generation who think to get things --
Rajinder:
I am.
Avnish:
I think your hair looks different, but you get away without hard work. Look, it is highly nuanced and it’s a big net positive, but I think just stepping back I really want to index on this confidential IPO because I think it’s a game changer. You're not under the gun so if you were to say what is the recipe to do this correctly bottoms up and top down one will be first is your business predictable, are you getting business model historical not just forecasted. Having all those basics in place, corporate governance in place and all of that, then with this confidential IPO coupled with the pre-marketing that we’re talking about I think you’ll start seeing a lot more success. If you look at the market cap Google created in the public markets and what people thought of it, what Facebook created. Right now, we’re stuck in this zone where things that have gone public have struggled. Two years out, once you're in the zone where companies are going public at 3, 4, 5, 10 billion and they’re at 30-40 billion then you will start feeling the FOMO as well as the excitement. So absolutely a net positive but filters to be followed and I think they’re reasonably doable and then if you do them, I think the mistake to this point has been that those filters have not been kept in mind. And then it’s like oh, what happened. But I think if you follow that I think the outcomes are going to be much better.
Vikram:
So to your point it’s not for everyone but there are founders and teams that are going to do really well in public markets and thrive so build the building blocks early, figure out your top team including finance and governance, figure out overall governance shepherded by really good independents. Get them in early so that they understand who you are and of course the predictability. I think you're building a long-term institution then there are founders in our portfolio who talk about building a 100 year company. And if you want to do that then at some point of time you are going to go public because you want to build this institution that stands the test of time, you know, likes of HDFC and Reliance and so on. And I think as we see more and more of our founders who are cycle tested, crisis tested, I think we will just see more predictable successes on these IPOs. So I'm definitely long on this.
Rajinder:
Yeah. Exciting and thank you. Today total public market cap of digital companies is probably still sub 5 percent maybe sub 2 percent of total market cap. At least internally we all believe that that's going to be 20 percent over the next decade. So I can see a lot of companies going public and thank you for breaking it down.
Avnish:
But that math we should keep repeating because it keeps us all very excited. So if you do that math and India goes to call it 8-10 trillion in the next decade and maybe a little bit more time and digital penetration of that market cap just happened in every market it’s been more than 30 percent, let’s say 25-30 percent, that's total 3 trillion coming. So super excited.
Rajinder:
Thank you, both Avi and Vikram. Cheers.
Avnish:
Thanks.
