A Day in the Life of a VC Partner

From the 36,000-foot view to ground reality

I try to have five or six catch-ups every week with people across industries and verticals, founders, operators, fellow investors and people who have built, invested in or attempted to build businesses through at least two business cycles, particularly in India.

These conversations are invaluable. Research and macroeconomic analysis provide the 36,000-foot view, but people who have operated on the ground bring a different perspective. They have seen what happens when capital becomes scarce, customer behaviour changes, regulations shift or a seemingly attractive market turns out to be much harder to penetrate than expected.

They understand the gap between what should work in theory and what actually works in practice.

I use these conversations to challenge my assumptions, understand what has changed and identify where conventional wisdom may be wrong. They also help me distinguish between a structural opportunity and a cyclical tailwind, an important distinction when investing in businesses that may take years to mature.

Ultimately, these interactions help me clear my own thinking. They rarely provide a ready-made investment answer, nor should they. Their value lies in helping me ask better questions and make more informed decisions.

Connecting global shifts to India's opportunity

A significant part of my investment thinking happens at the intersection of technology and macroeconomics.

The US and China are important reference points, particularly in AI, semiconductors and frontier technologies. But simply observing what works in developed markets is not enough. India has its own strengths and constraints: infrastructure, capital availability, customer purchasing power, supply-chain dependencies and the depth of technical talent all influence what can be built here.

The question I keep returning to is: what is the next layer of opportunity for India?

Can a technology developed elsewhere be adapted into a commercially viable Indian business? Can an Indian company build proprietary technology rather than simply deploy someone else's? Where do global shifts create an opening for Indian founders? And which of these opportunities are large enough to justify venture capital?

The answers require more than a compelling narrative. They require an understanding of technology, timing, market realities and the economics of building a business.

The art of knowing what not to invest in

I am naturally curious, so my instinct when meeting a founder is to ask questions. Why this problem? Why now? How does the technology actually work? What makes it difficult to replicate? Who is the customer, and will they pay?

Over time, I have come to believe that venture capital is as much about being highly confident in what you do not want to invest in as it is about identifying what you do.

There will always be attractive markets, compelling founders and interesting technologies. The harder task is understanding why a particular opportunity may not work for us. Is the market genuinely penetrable? Is the technology differentiated? Is the timing right? Are the risks adequately understood? Does the potential return justify the capital and time involved?

My evaluation framework therefore goes beyond the founder, market size and technology. I also pay close attention to two questions that can materially change the outcome of an investment.

First, timing. Is the solution arriving before the market is ready, or is the market reaching an inflection point? Being early can create an advantage, but being too early can consume capital while customers, infrastructure or supporting ecosystems catch up. The right technology at the wrong time can still be the wrong investment.

Second, competitive catch-up. If a competitor is ahead today, how difficult is it to close the gap? Is the advantage based on proprietary IP, technical depth, data, distribution, manufacturing capabilities or simply a temporary lead? What prevents a well-funded competitor from replicating the solution? In technology investing, the quality of the moat matters as much as the novelty of the product.

These questions help distinguish between businesses that are merely interesting and those that can build enduring competitive advantages.

Founder first, understanding the person behind the business

Technology, markets and timing matter, but the founder remains central to my evaluation.

I want to understand how a founder thinks under pressure, how they respond when their assumptions are challenged, and how they make decisions with incomplete information. Resilience matters, but so does the ability to recognise when something is not working and pivot without losing sight of the larger ambition.

I pay attention to intellectual honesty, emotional intelligence, self-awareness and the ability to attract and retain talent. A founder's response to difficult questions can sometimes reveal more than a polished presentation.

Building a company is rarely a linear exercise. Markets change, competitors emerge, products fail and strategies need to evolve. The founder's ability to absorb setbacks, learn quickly and make sound decisions through uncertainty can ultimately determine whether a business survives and scales.

This is also why conversations matter so much. You rarely understand a founder's psyche, resilience or decision-making from a single meeting. Conviction develops over time, through repeated interactions and a deeper understanding of the person building the company.

Beyond the investment decision

The day also involves working with existing portfolio companies, discussing strategic choices, helping with key hires, making introductions and evaluating follow-on capital requirements.

Internally, there are investment discussions, competing opportunities and difficult decisions about where the fund's capital should go. Not every promising company becomes an investment, and not every investment thesis survives contact with new information.

Venture capital involves allocating two scarce resources: capital and time. The decisions we make about where to deploy both can shape outcomes for years.

The responsibility, therefore, is not simply to find companies with potential. It is to exercise judgement about which founders, markets and technologies deserve conviction, and to remain intellectually honest when the evidence points in another direction.

A long game of compounding

What I enjoy most about the job is that the learning never really stops. Technology evolves, markets shift, regulations change and founders continually challenge established assumptions. An investment thesis that made sense yesterday must be tested against what we learn today.

The early-morning podcasts, the conversations with operators and investors, the founder meetings and the investment debates are all part of the same process. Each contributes a small piece to a much larger picture.

I cannot claim to have all the answers. The objective is to ask better questions, understand India's realities in the context of global shifts, and recognise the founders who see something others do not.

Because venture capital is ultimately about making decisions today based on what the world could look like years from now.

And sometimes, that process begins with an alarm at 4:45 a.m., a nine-minute snooze, and a podcast.