0:06

What is something that you believe in

0:08

that no one else around? Two dollars

0:10

if you. Heard episode thirty with

0:12

Do They Sugar while the founder

0:15

and Ceo of Or Your Room

0:17

Then you'll recognize this as a

0:19

question he at once the while

0:21

applying for the field Fellowship. It's

0:23

a simple but powerful question that

0:26

usually differentiates motivated, passionate and unreasonable

0:28

founders from other equally capable professionals.

0:30

Because what is a starter, if

0:32

not but a meal, Believe in

0:34

something that should exist. The.

0:37

Question: What is something that you believe

0:39

in that no one else around you

0:41

does is also equally abd from? I

0:43

guess today. Because Tommy

0:46

Rogen believed in something that

0:48

no one else around wanted.

0:50

Samia is the founder and

0:52

Ceo of Waterfield Advises India's

0:54

largest multifamily office and wealth

0:56

advisory firm which manages or

0:58

forty thousand cruel rupees. That's

1:00

all four billion dollars for

1:02

it's clients. But. In two

1:04

thousand and ten saw me was

1:06

working at Standard Chartered Bank a

1:08

bank She joined street from college

1:10

after back to back mathematics decrease

1:12

a bank where she'd bought for

1:15

seventeen straight years a bank which

1:17

had been have first and only

1:19

job. Most. Importantly, for

1:21

the last two years she'd been the

1:23

head of Standard Chartered Private Banking. I'm

1:25

she drew to very top. But. Having

1:27

reached their was wondering why she wasn't

1:29

interested in playing the same game anymore.

1:33

Perhaps. It was because Two Thousand and

1:35

Ten was also the Us Army. And on forty. The.

1:37

Age when many professionals hit them.

1:40

Midlife crisis if you remember. Gotta

1:42

get Roman Decal founder and Ceo

1:44

of We Cool decided to start

1:46

up to after hitting forty. Some

1:49

into decided to quit her job and

1:51

start out on her own by making

1:54

a contrarian bet that it was better

1:56

to charge for wealthy clients directly for

1:58

financial advice instead of. making money

2:00

via commissions paid by financial services

2:03

companies whose products she would recommend.

2:06

Swamiya says that in 2010, this

2:08

went completely against the tide in

2:10

India's wealth management sector. No

2:12

one else was doing it. Even her peers and

2:14

ex-colleagues were dismissive of her belief. In

2:18

this episode, Swamiya, in her calm and

2:20

reflective manner, tells me her story. There

2:23

is a strong thread of vision

2:25

that runs through our entire conversation.

2:27

Swamiya is driven by a sharp

2:29

sense of curiosity and purpose in

2:31

everything that Waterfield advisors are doing.

2:33

You'll notice it in the way

2:35

she breaks down her midlife crisis,

2:37

her role as CEO, her beliefs

2:40

about products and incentives, and even

2:42

her work for empowering women as

2:44

investors. We also talk about

2:46

what the wealth management landscape of India looks

2:48

like. My Waterfield is

2:50

like a lawyer or doctor, but

2:52

for financial well-being. How

2:55

to survive in the short term when you're building

2:57

to last. And

2:59

the one question she asks people

3:01

before hiring them. This

3:03

is episode 32 of First Principles

3:05

with Swamiya Raja. Let's get started. Thank

3:37

you, Swamiya, for appearing on the show. I

3:39

want to start with how

3:42

you started Waterfield. I

3:45

think from our research it came up that

3:47

you had a midlife crisis of sorts. You

3:51

turned 40 and you knew

3:53

that you wanted to do something

3:55

different. What

3:58

was it? What was that feeling? that,

4:01

you know, was it a

4:03

new year? Was it something else? Could

4:05

you take us back to when you turned 40 and

4:07

you had that midlife crisis? Yes,

4:10

Rohan. Love to tell you about what

4:13

prompted the decision to become

4:15

an entrepreneur. So

4:17

as you rightly said, I had just turned

4:20

40. It was 2010 at that time. And it was just two years

4:26

after the global financial crisis of

4:29

2008. And at

4:31

that time, I was heading the private bank

4:33

of standard childhood. I was

4:35

quite lucky in my stints in standard childhood,

4:37

I got everything very early in life. So

4:40

here I was heading a P&L, which

4:43

was the private bank by 38, which was 2008. What

4:47

I found when I was heading the private bank

4:49

was that I didn't

4:52

think we were going about it correctly in

4:54

the way in which we managed our clients.

4:57

I thought that we were very

4:59

transaction focused. We were very

5:01

keen on looking at the investment side of

5:03

it. But when you spoke

5:05

to different clients, they wanted more.

5:08

So you had your relationship managers

5:10

who would be very happy to

5:13

have gone and done an investment

5:15

of five crores for a

5:17

client who was actually worth 500 crores. And

5:21

they were kind of doing

5:23

cartwheels. And I

5:25

thought, but this isn't right, because

5:27

the client one is worth much

5:29

more. The client is also looking for much

5:31

more. And we were not solving

5:34

that problem in the private bank, because

5:36

we were very investment heavy. The

5:39

second big problem was that we

5:43

were in what is called a

5:45

distribution led business. The industry was

5:47

distribution led. So as

5:50

a bank, we were making our

5:52

money from the commissions that we

5:55

received from the product manufacturers. So

5:59

As a business head, I am mooted. Order

6:01

to you're being proud of being. A

6:03

mutual fund or Pms

6:05

or on. Or

6:08

Pms or a little. He was that as a

6:11

way of the bank. What? I would it even

6:13

further detail cars even today. Of

6:15

and then I thought but. I.

6:18

As a business head and motivated by

6:20

the product that gives me the most

6:22

money so if there was a product

6:24

that gave me that he little sees

6:27

that see twenty this is pointed. Put

6:29

the this is points on. What

6:32

was my motivation to have the

6:34

police and said manager at elite

6:36

place that product in appliance portfolio

6:38

as opposed to someone else who

6:40

was giving me five percent of

6:42

the is and then the relationship

6:44

managers and motivated to so.product or

6:47

place that product and a poor

6:49

for you to somewhere in my

6:51

mind that didn't sit right since

6:53

this the ethics of it if

6:55

you if there's a better word

6:57

I don't know but the ethics

6:59

of it that there was a

7:01

non. Alignment as insists or there

7:03

was a conflict of interest when

7:06

I called myself an advisor, but

7:08

I was actually may be placing

7:10

some of the product and applied

7:12

for for you. That didn't sit

7:14

well with me so. A

7:17

combination of the. Ethics.

7:20

Of and the values a combination

7:23

of to the market sentiment of

7:25

post global financial crisis and most

7:27

are individuals and signs. Been quite

7:30

unhappy with their banks. They cause

7:32

you. The Global Financial crisis really

7:35

did come because big banks in

7:37

the Us had one set of

7:39

products at the hard on their

7:42

proprietary books and they were selling

7:44

another bunch of products to that

7:47

science and that led to the

7:49

crisis. So when I was reading

7:51

all of this, I just kept thinking

7:53

that. She to a difficult

7:55

to happen in India. It's. Good to be.

7:58

It could happen within. Love your did.

8:01

not a decade where we suddenly

8:03

going to find that line to

8:05

go to be quite unhappy where

8:07

they have their wealth managers putting

8:09

products to them that don't necessarily

8:11

meet their needs. I'm. So

8:14

I said okay, we keep complaining about

8:16

you know, ah let somebody else do

8:18

it. Let somebody else take that you

8:20

to take the first plans And I

8:23

thought no, let let me take that

8:25

leap of faith and at that type

8:27

of course I was also going through

8:29

this. You do the questions to ask

8:31

that forty as what is the meaning

8:34

of your life, what is the eleventh

8:36

of what you're doing And then I

8:38

said well I'm. Could.

8:41

I started company which was a

8:43

company which did not have any

8:45

of these conflict of interest issues.

8:47

Could we be a company that

8:49

had a holistic wealth management services

8:51

that we could provide? And then

8:54

I remember talking to my husband

8:56

and saying you know I'm going

8:58

to do this because we always

9:00

been. You know, a double income

9:02

families? what will it mean? Know

9:04

if I give up my dog.

9:08

Are you okay if for me

9:10

to do this and I remember

9:12

my parents being in a to

9:14

suck suck because if I go

9:16

back to my own back grown

9:18

up became from a salaried oh

9:20

background. My father was at Stake

9:22

Bank of India. He'd been in

9:25

one job on his life and

9:27

I had been grinned a Standard

9:29

Chartered for seventeen years. I'd never

9:31

moved after the fulfilled that I

9:33

took so it was quite difficult

9:35

for the somebody to accept the

9:37

fact that I. Want to be an

9:39

entrepreneur? But.

9:42

I think somewhere deep down

9:44

inside my husband knew that

9:46

I wanted to. build

9:48

something i wanted to create something

9:50

and he never wanted me to

9:52

have any regrets are in my

9:55

life and likewise i want to

9:57

have any regrets in my life

9:59

so That's how water feels with

10:01

bone. Fascinating.

10:03

So in many ways. You

10:06

climb to the top of the corporate

10:08

ladder and then

10:10

realize that the prize wasn't really what

10:12

you thought it would be. And

10:15

then you started about trying to

10:17

recreate it from scratch. Great.

10:22

Your family, like

10:24

all, I think traditional salary,

10:27

middle class, like, you know, I come from one

10:29

as well. And I had versions

10:31

of the same conversation that like, you know,

10:33

I used to pay it. Like, why would

10:35

you give away a job? So many years

10:37

of experience, right? Because I mean, and

10:39

to be fair to them, they cannot process this. Right. So

10:42

of course, they were in shock. Your

10:45

husband was supportive. But from

10:47

what we understand, a lot of the

10:50

your peers were very skeptical

10:53

that what you would start would

10:55

fail within a couple of years. And

10:58

I mean, just as

11:00

an outsider, I would kind of wonder

11:02

the same too, that you're really

11:04

been talking about incentives, that banks

11:09

or financial institutions are

11:11

incentivized to sell products

11:13

where they make more money. And this is a

11:16

truism. I walk into a retail store. The

11:19

stuff which is kept near the checkout counter

11:21

is more profitable. If I ask for

11:23

a brand of biscuits, the brand

11:25

which is recommended to me is

11:27

the one which gives the shopkeeper

11:29

more incentives. Right. So incentives drives

11:31

everyone's behavior. What

11:34

was it? And I'm assuming that was what

11:36

your peers were saying that, look, you're going

11:38

to fail because you're going against the way

11:40

the incentive system is structured. Were

11:45

they wrong? And what did you see back

11:47

then that they want to see? So

11:50

that's a great question, Rohan,

11:52

because rightly, I

11:56

think what a lot of my peers were

11:58

seeing and behind. Perhaps a lot of

12:01

people even today see is

12:03

a kind of short-termism in

12:05

the way in which they build their

12:07

businesses or they look

12:09

at businesses. Whereas when

12:11

I looked at Waterfield and I

12:14

looked at what I was building,

12:16

this was about the long term,

12:19

but more importantly, it was

12:21

about building right, not

12:24

just for clients, but

12:28

for the ecosystem. That

12:30

today, if you have only one

12:33

business model, which is in a particular

12:35

way, which is based on a certain

12:37

set of incentives, but that

12:39

doesn't land correctly for the client or

12:41

one of the stakeholders, then

12:43

that jar is in my mind. So

12:46

for me, it was could we create

12:48

a business model that

12:50

was actually aligned with what

12:53

is better for the larger ecosystem

12:55

and stakeholders? So every

12:58

time I always heard, but

13:00

Indians don't pay fees because

13:03

the business model that I was now embarking

13:05

upon was to say that

13:07

I will not get compensated by

13:09

my product manufacturer, but I

13:11

will get compensated by my client because

13:14

only if the client pays me fees will

13:17

I then have a true alignment in

13:19

serving their interest best. So

13:24

when I looked at my peers, my

13:26

peers were saying Indians don't pay fees

13:28

because they've always been getting money from

13:31

the product manufacturer. I was

13:33

trying to say, well, we haven't

13:35

really tested this because I was

13:38

thinking about lawyers. I was thinking

13:40

about doctors. And I was thinking

13:42

that you go to your lawyer

13:44

and doctor when you need medical

13:47

help, legal help

13:49

by the same token, your financial well-being

13:51

needs to be taken care of also

13:54

by somebody who has your best interest at

13:56

heart. So could

13:58

Waterfield be positioned? as

14:01

a company that was like

14:03

a lawyer or a doctor,

14:05

but it was positioned to look

14:07

after your financial well-being.

14:11

That meant being able to be much more

14:13

holistic in the way in which we looked

14:18

at either the opportunity or what we were

14:20

trying to solve for. But

14:23

clearly, yes, it was

14:25

quite a fight, which

14:28

was there against competition. But

14:30

when I look at now statistics, which

14:34

is, let's say, a developed market today,

14:36

wealth advisory is about almost 60% of

14:38

the way

14:41

in which clients engage

14:44

with their wealth managers

14:46

is through an advisory

14:48

model. Today, it is

14:50

still 14% to 15% in India.

14:53

But if you were to talk to any

14:55

competitor today, they will all say,

14:57

we are moving

14:59

towards the advisory model. I'm

15:02

happy to know that, you know, Waterfield was

15:04

a pioneer in this space 10 years

15:06

ago. On

15:10

that note of

15:12

the difference between long-term and

15:14

short-term thinking, whenever a

15:16

new player wants to disrupt a

15:19

sector, which is driven by short-term thinking

15:22

and incentives, and it says, we want

15:24

to bring in a long-term perspective, it

15:27

necessitates that for the first

15:30

few years, they

15:32

will make less money, they might

15:34

probably not be profitable, they might have to

15:36

go through a lot of hardships, because the

15:38

entire system is going to work against them,

15:41

right? You go and talk to a client

15:43

and the client will be like, really, you

15:45

want me to pay you money? How come

15:47

nobody else? You know, I mean, in

15:49

many ways, we went through some version of that ourselves.

15:52

So Indians don't pay for news. I

15:55

mean, that's not true. I mean, all Indians want

15:57

everything subsidized by advertising, as we saw.

16:00

see today through the rise of subscription

16:02

driven OTT channels or news platforms. That's

16:04

not true. Like you rightly said, somebody's

16:06

got to do it to see whether

16:08

it works or not. But

16:11

when you did it for the first few years, you

16:14

were a single person starting out. I mean,

16:16

did you have co-founders? How did you fund

16:18

yourself? I mean, it's great

16:20

to have the philosophy of wanting to

16:22

build a long term business model, but

16:24

how would you do it in the

16:26

medium to short term because

16:28

you're going against the grain and

16:31

you don't have the capital and

16:33

the infrastructure of the system? So

16:36

one thing I will say, Robin,

16:38

is I think I was quite

16:42

the idealist at

16:44

that time, because for me, it's about can

16:47

you build something better for

16:49

the greater good with always

16:51

inherent kind of philosophy? Maybe

16:53

a lot of that I would in

16:56

some ways ascribe to just good

16:58

family values, which have been

17:00

ingrained over the years. But what could you do

17:02

for the greater good? But

17:04

the practical issues of, you know, how do

17:06

you fund yourself and how do you make

17:09

ends meet? I

17:11

think one was I do have a co-founder.

17:15

So the person who I chose to be

17:17

a co-founder with me at Waterfield was someone

17:20

who was in the search business because

17:22

in my, what does that mean?

17:25

Executive search. So very

17:27

interesting. The marriage of

17:29

wealth management and executive search.

17:32

And the reason behind that was

17:34

because in my mind, when

17:36

you built a business or you had

17:38

starting something new, the core

17:41

of it is people. So if you

17:43

don't have good people, then how are you

17:45

going to build a company? Today,

17:47

I'm very proud that the first

17:49

employee of Waterfield still is an

17:52

employee of Waterfield after all these

17:54

years. But to me,

17:56

that was like the perfect co-founder

17:58

That I could have somebody. Who knew people

18:01

and ecosystem? Because my ecosystem at

18:03

that point was very narrow. It

18:05

was just Standard Chartered and everything

18:07

and around Standard Chartered and I

18:09

realized O'neill said less Standard Chartered,

18:11

how big the opportunity and how

18:13

big the woods early is because

18:15

when you tend to be and

18:17

or organization you can that he

18:19

fixated on your ecosystem of the

18:21

organization's of time you don't really

18:23

think beyond. So for me it

18:25

was like this oh my goodness

18:27

spot or wealth of opportunity that

18:29

is. Outside. And

18:32

I felt even a look at that.

18:34

I actually grew as a person. Offer

18:36

became an entrepreneur. But

18:39

having said that, For. The

18:41

first couple of years. I.

18:43

Was very hesitant to raise any

18:45

kind of Exxon capital. I was

18:48

said he kill that. I wanted

18:50

to make sure that this business

18:52

model did actually work and when

18:54

I first started Waterfield we didn't

18:56

even have regulation that supported us.

18:59

So. Company. Founded in August

19:01

Twenty Eleven and the first time

19:03

we have any kind of regulation

19:05

that season supportive is when Sebi

19:07

had grits and direct and distribution

19:09

plans that came out in September

19:11

of Twenty Twelve. So for those

19:13

first size six months I was

19:15

knocking on days people's doors and

19:17

they were telling me look why

19:19

should we paid double fees because

19:22

the thing distribution season on top

19:24

of that of the advisory fees

19:26

and I was really thinking cost

19:28

this is not going anywhere. And

19:30

I will say that I was

19:32

ready at that point. a your

19:34

own to say sets the such

19:36

as does this, it's not working,

19:38

it's too early afford this ideal.

19:41

For many people were you at that point? About

19:43

three or four not more than

19:45

that. I'm Anna was thinking this

19:47

is clearly not working and then

19:49

said be happened and I said

19:51

okay this is a chance it

19:53

means as I can work with

19:55

line to say I will do

19:57

your mutual fund distribution Commuter fun.

20:00

Locations through. A direct plan

20:02

and not a distribution plant and I

20:04

can help you save the money on

20:06

because the there is no x that's

20:09

a little bit more technical the to

20:11

have an expense ratio which is there's

20:13

and distribute illicit direct loans and direct

20:16

sounds a cheaper which means that you

20:18

could have some advisory fees which is

20:20

also there and declined to still better

20:23

off going through that route and I

20:25

said all right this is an opportunity

20:27

The good thought was within three months

20:30

of.january of twenty. Thirteen on.

20:34

Came out with guidelines which

20:36

was the registered investment advice

20:38

on sidelines which then suddenly

20:40

meant that. We.

20:42

Have a business. We. Have an

20:45

opportunity to. Really build a business in

20:47

allows Who are why what wide

20:49

those guidelines was so good for

20:51

you. It was very good. they

20:53

close. The other thing I realize when

20:56

I was reaching out to people in

20:58

that one meal was that. If.

21:00

You are not regulated in

21:02

financial services. There is always

21:04

this hesitancy of giving money

21:06

to someone or getting somebody

21:08

to advise them. because they

21:10

this. They think that you

21:12

can up and leave tomorrow

21:14

and then what happens to

21:16

them money which is extremely

21:18

ballad. And especially for that won't

21:21

have the brand of a large bank

21:23

bugging you. Oh absolutely. And I think

21:25

it's up to that is a learning

21:27

for me in some ways. Which was

21:29

that. Doubtless? Quite

21:32

a sock. Oh. Because when

21:34

you when you're when you have a

21:37

visiting card that says that you are

21:39

the head of the private. Everyone's ready

21:41

to talk to you on in the

21:44

moments you don't have that and you

21:46

just you yourself. Waiting.

21:48

To even have, oh, an appointment

21:50

or a meeting with somebody. The

21:53

doors close. A

21:56

tip from the he time to rebuild

21:59

but that's. That was small learning.

22:02

Could you tell us about Waterfield Advisors? How

22:04

would you describe the firm? What

22:06

is it? And what does it do? So

22:10

Waterfield is a

22:13

group of professional managers who

22:16

will work with you as a client or

22:18

a family in all

22:20

your investment and

22:22

non-investment related requirements.

22:25

So if you have some money, which

22:27

you've got as a corpus, you want

22:30

to make it, you either want

22:32

to save that money and

22:34

you want to grow it, then we help you in

22:37

terms of identifying the best products which

22:39

are out there, which will

22:41

help you for the outcome that

22:43

you want in your portfolio. And

22:46

different people have different outcomes. Some

22:48

people may be wanting to invest

22:50

that money for their business. Some

22:52

may be wanting to invest that

22:54

money because for their

22:57

retirement, someone else, for their children's education,

22:59

we try to understand what

23:01

is the purpose behind which you want

23:03

to invest and help you there. The

23:05

non-investment part is really the part which

23:08

a lot of private banks were not

23:10

addressing, which is around succession. You have

23:12

a family business. How do you then

23:14

make sure that that family

23:16

business is passed on

23:19

to the next generation in a good way? How

23:22

do you make sure that you prevent conflicts

23:24

from arising when that business gets passed down?

23:28

How do you make sure that you

23:30

have a will in place in terms

23:32

of your own legacy? So we were

23:34

trying to look at wealth management from

23:36

the broader perspective of all

23:39

the other things that wealth

23:41

managers do, which is around

23:43

succession, around legacy, around family

23:46

governance, around philanthropy. Unfortunately,

23:48

in India, wealth

23:50

management is equal to investment

23:53

management. I was just about to ask you that

23:55

because the way you described it, it

23:57

looks like the first line of business

23:59

for you. is like investment

24:01

advisory for retail investors, but at the

24:03

higher order level for families and high

24:06

net worth individuals, right? So it's the

24:08

same thing because even an investment advisor

24:10

does pretty much the same thing. What

24:12

are your needs? When would you want

24:15

money? We'll recommend, and that's what you

24:17

do, but at a much larger scale.

24:20

The second part, what you said, is

24:23

largely absent from the retail investors

24:25

space and for probably like,

24:28

you know, majority reasons. Correct,

24:30

and I think that's where, but that's what

24:32

a client actually wants. They

24:34

want some- Want enough to pay for it? I

24:37

think they will want enough to pay

24:40

for it because by having an advisor

24:42

on your side, you prevent

24:44

the accidents from happening. What

24:47

are we promising? We are promising to at

24:49

least try and help prevent

24:51

the accidents, or making

24:53

sure that something terrible

24:55

doesn't happen. Could be, are we,

24:58

so when you look at investments as well, it's

25:01

not always about investment

25:04

return maximization. It's

25:07

about return optimization for

25:09

your level of risk or

25:12

whatever are the outcomes that you want. Having

25:15

an advisor tell you that, I

25:18

think is extremely important because

25:20

otherwise you may get carried away

25:23

with the noise. We're like, you

25:25

know, I don't want to say that

25:28

we're the cold water, which is, you

25:30

know, kind of dousing all the exuberance,

25:33

but we are the realist

25:35

in the room to tell

25:37

you what can go right, but what can also

25:39

go wrong. So

25:42

the way you make money is largely through

25:44

fees that you charge from clients.

25:47

It's only through fees. It's only through fees. You

25:49

did mention that you have, you

25:52

do invest and you have a fund of

25:54

funds business as well. Where does that come

25:56

in? Does that, is that part of the

25:58

first, like you're investing your, clients money

26:00

on behalf of them. Yes, so

26:02

when you have you have two models you

26:05

will have an advisory model which is where

26:08

we provide advice to a client so we

26:11

know their entire portfolio. We then decide how

26:13

much is going to go into equities, how

26:15

much are going to fix income, how much

26:17

are going to gold, how much are going

26:19

to gold, international allocations. But

26:22

there are times when the client does

26:25

not have the time to be

26:27

able to actually manage their investments in

26:29

which case we say we will operate

26:32

these investments through a discretionary wrapper.

26:35

So it is still multi-asset class but

26:37

you've given us the discretion to say

26:39

here is the 100 rupees please

26:42

go and manage it on my behalf. The

26:44

Honda fund specifically was was

26:47

an initiative

26:49

that we started in 2020 and that was a

26:53

fallout from the advisory business because

26:56

what happened in advisories that let's

26:58

say that I was investing into

27:01

different private equity and venture funds.

27:03

What I found is that we were

27:06

doing the diligence, we have all the data,

27:08

we spend a lot of time with the fund

27:11

managers to understand what is it that they're doing

27:13

and then we recommend to a client and say

27:15

please put money into this private equity or this

27:17

venture fund. But

27:19

we found that in the process we

27:23

were not necessarily getting institutional rights

27:25

for the investments that we made

27:27

and by institutional rights I mean that

27:30

we weren't always getting co-investment

27:32

opportunities on the fund because

27:34

the ticket sizes were too

27:37

small individually but collectively would

27:39

serve the the threshold

27:41

that the funds had. We weren't

27:44

necessarily getting pro-rater, we

27:47

weren't getting a seat on the LP

27:49

advisory council and we could

27:53

may or may not get better feed terms that may

27:55

or may not happen but

27:57

we found that when we aggregated the capital

30:00

Then dropped at maybe

30:02

around three years after

30:04

I started the business, three, four years after

30:06

I started the business to 10 million because

30:08

we then found that we needed to also

30:11

be part of the journey for the

30:13

families as they were creating wealth. One

30:17

of the things we spoke about earlier, which was

30:19

on the non-investment side of it, a

30:21

big part of it is around your

30:24

investment vehicles, is around have you

30:26

got the right structures? Have you got the

30:28

right trust structures in place? Sometimes

30:31

you need to do that before the liquidity event.

30:34

We found that we needed to

30:36

start working with our clients from

30:38

the 10 million threshold itself in

30:41

order for us to help them through the liquidity

30:43

event. Then more

30:46

recently, I've been asked, well, you

30:48

do all this good stuff for the

30:50

very rich. What about

30:52

democratizing that a little bit more? That's

30:55

when about 18 months ago, we

30:58

started working with clients

31:00

who were typically corporate professionals. If

31:03

they were lawyers, if they were doctors,

31:05

if they were private equity partners, if

31:08

they were management consultants, we

31:10

realized that they were very time poor. They

31:14

wanted all this, but they didn't have the

31:16

time. They also wanted to

31:18

work with a company that had their interest

31:20

at heart. These would

31:22

be what, a three to $5 million? These

31:24

would typically start now at about $2 million. It's

31:28

about that $2 to $10 million segment

31:30

is where we're currently operating. The

31:33

one exception though that I've made even

31:35

to this $2 million threshold is where

31:37

women are concerned. On

31:40

International Women's Day, we launched a segment

31:42

called Heritage. The

31:44

ATR is the HER in

31:46

Heritage because I

31:49

believe that when we

31:52

were working with women professionals, with

31:54

women entrepreneurs, and

31:56

with women inheritors. And

32:01

they needed something a little different. Money

32:03

didn't always come to them in the

32:05

2 million or 3 million at that

32:07

level so quickly. But they

32:10

needed a, I don't know

32:12

if this is the right word, a safe harbor,

32:14

a safe place where they

32:16

could ask questions, where

32:18

they wouldn't feel judged. And...

32:21

I mean, this is true. I mean, virtually

32:23

every research that has come out about women

32:25

and investment comes to the

32:27

fact that I think they are

32:29

always looking for places where they

32:32

can be treated as professionals,

32:35

as people, and not have a default

32:37

point of view thrust upon them and

32:39

have someone across the day.

32:41

And I think Waterfield does that. We are

32:43

50% of our staff are women, 33% of

32:48

my senior leadership team are women. And

32:52

we engage with women in

32:54

a different way because

32:56

through Heritage, I've realized that

33:00

these women who we're catering to

33:02

are already financially independent. So

33:05

we're not solving the independence problem. Someone

33:07

else is doing that. We're

33:09

solving a financial literacy problem

33:12

because they may be

33:14

financially independent, but they

33:16

don't know how to manage their money.

33:19

Or they don't know who to ask if

33:21

they want to plan for a particular life

33:24

event that may be happening. So

33:27

in Heritage, we look at three things.

33:29

We look at financial literacy. We

33:31

look at networking because for

33:34

women, networks are very important.

33:37

And networks outside what they may see

33:39

through their family structures or their spouses

33:41

or otherwise or even their work ecosystems,

33:44

it's nice to have a network outside

33:46

of that. And the

33:48

third is wealth with a purpose because

33:51

ultimately, I believe women tend to be, when

33:53

they're looking at their wealth management, tend

33:55

to be quite goal-oriented. They know why

33:58

they are saving that. money.

34:00

It could be for

34:04

retirement, it could be for their children's education, it

34:06

could be to start a foundation, it could

34:08

be for starting a business later. But they're

34:11

thinking about, well, I have this part right

34:13

now, what do I do so that I

34:15

kind of, and

34:17

here I will use the word maximize, because

34:20

I think it's about how do I maximize

34:22

this, because they know that that wealth is

34:24

going to be used for good in something

34:26

that will help them and their families to

34:28

inform it. You said women tend to be

34:31

slightly more goal oriented. Yes. I would ask

34:33

you to contrast that with men,

34:36

as opposed to men who are... I

34:40

think goal oriented in terms of

34:42

their money. They're very clear

34:45

that I would like my

34:47

money to be this, I would

34:49

like it to be used for this. And

34:52

we then work backwards with them to

34:54

say that let

34:58

us look at the options in terms of

35:01

the portfolio to get you to that

35:03

goal. And the difference

35:05

between men and women in investing

35:07

is that, let's say I share

35:09

with a woman client

35:12

that this is good for you

35:14

to get to your

35:16

goal, but this is a

35:18

much riskier product. It will

35:20

get to your goal, but

35:22

the woman has to...will ask a lot

35:24

of questions on the risk side to

35:27

be satisfied that it is appropriate

35:29

for her to take that risk, to

35:31

make that investment. Whereas with

35:33

some of the male investors that

35:36

we work with, they

35:38

may be looking much more at the

35:40

risk and they're more accepting of the

35:42

risk, may not ask as many questions

35:45

as a woman would before making

35:47

that investment. That's what I've seen. They just

35:50

want to research and be sure a

35:53

lot more as women

35:56

before they jump into making an investment

35:58

because they're all... oriented

36:00

to is that in

36:03

line with what is the outcome that I

36:05

ultimately know? That's interesting from what you're

36:07

saying. It's the more purpose driven

36:10

and purpose backwards that I'm laser sharp

36:12

about what the ultimate purpose is. Yes.

36:14

And will this deviate me from my

36:16

purpose or not? And you're saying and

36:19

of course we are generalizing a little

36:21

bit. Men

36:23

are more in terms of I mean, I'm

36:25

trying to maximize my wealth. If this is

36:27

risky, it's OK, because I think they're slightly

36:29

more hazy or on the purpose because I'm

36:31

not. It's OK. One is focused more on

36:33

the again. I'm generalizing

36:36

journey, whereas the other person is

36:38

slightly more focused on the destination

36:40

and the first and we

36:43

see it. I said, yes,

36:45

you're right. We are usually generalizing and

36:47

I don't think we should either. But

36:50

this is just that they

36:52

are their wealth needs

36:54

to have a meaning. It

36:58

needs to have a meaning. You

37:01

said earlier and of

37:03

course you arrived that women become

37:05

financially independent, but they are not

37:07

financially literate. Now, in any series

37:09

of events, those two words would

37:11

never be juxtaposed like that. You

37:14

would never become independent without being

37:16

literate in that area. And yet

37:18

you said that women

37:20

become independent financially, but they are

37:22

often still not literate. Yes. I

37:26

mean, of course, we know, but I would still

37:28

like to understand from you. Why is that and

37:31

how can we hope to reverse that so

37:33

that literacy precedes independence as much

37:35

as possible? And

37:39

that is really the reason of

37:41

heritage, because

37:43

what I've seen is that

37:46

women, when they are financially independent,

37:51

they also multitask on a

37:53

number of different things in their lives.

37:55

So they're looking after their kids,

37:58

they've got their jobs. They've

38:01

got elderly parents

38:03

who they may be also looking after.

38:06

So at any point in time, there

38:09

are multiple priorities. So

38:12

for some reason, the investment part

38:15

is something that they tend to

38:17

delegate to a spouse,

38:20

to a father, to a brother, to someone

38:23

else because they've got so many other

38:26

things to do and they're multitasking

38:28

all the time that, well, there's one less

38:30

thing for them to worry about. So

38:32

it's the easiest to just give away to someone else

38:35

to say, you know, you take care of the investing

38:37

and just do everything else. For

38:40

us... A source of many future issues

38:43

and troubles later on, once they

38:45

cross that financial independence path and

38:47

they realize that, look, I

38:50

wish I had done this better earlier on. And

38:52

I think, and there's also good

38:54

reason to do it because women tend

38:57

to outlive men. So

38:59

we see women coming into

39:01

wealth sometimes very late because

39:04

their spouse has passed away.

39:07

They've inherited all this money and they

39:09

just don't have a clue as to

39:11

how to go about looking after it. And

39:14

at that time, it may be too late

39:16

to try and learn new things. Of course,

39:19

many women, you know,

39:21

then have no choice but to confront it

39:23

and learn. But I would

39:25

rather that they learn earlier. Let

39:29

them learn. They may not choose to be

39:31

the active investor. They may still say, let

39:33

me delegate this out to somebody else. But

39:37

don't relegate the

39:39

decision. I

39:44

think there's a slight difference here. One

39:46

is where you are consciously asking someone

39:48

else to do it. In the other

39:51

case, you have not... You

39:53

have de-prioritized it. So I think that's very relevant. What are

39:55

your questions about Waterfield? in

40:00

terms of its size? How

40:02

many employees are there at one

40:05

of these? We have about 120. In the last

40:07

one year, we've kind of doubled our staff. We

40:09

raised a round of

40:15

capital in January 2022. So that

40:19

helped us to really accelerate

40:21

and build and grow and scale

40:23

our business to be much

40:26

larger and also in some ways to start working

40:28

in this new segment. How long is it?

40:30

What do you look at? We

40:32

look at assets under management. That's really

40:35

the driver for us. We manage

40:37

close to about 40,000 crores right now. And that

40:41

40,000 crores is

40:44

across financial assets. So we don't include

40:46

a lot of other things that other

40:48

wealth measuring companies may look at. But

40:51

for us, it's just what we manage, which is

40:53

the financial assets. When

40:56

I look at Waterfield and when I

40:58

look at the opportunity, I

41:01

just think that I want to be able

41:03

to kind of spread the good

41:05

stuff that we do in

41:07

many ways. And can we help more

41:09

families? Can we help more clients? Can

41:11

we help more corporate professionals? Can we

41:13

help more women? Just do

41:15

not be afraid of money

41:19

and to have a good relationship with

41:21

money. And I think that's what... That's a

41:23

really phrase right? Afraid of money.

41:25

I mean, normally one would

41:28

never think that you would be afraid

41:30

of money or wealth. And

41:32

yet you send that. Yes. And... Why?

41:35

I mean, could you explain what does that mean,

41:37

being afraid of money? I think

41:39

for women, the context is that

41:42

when I make a bad investment, right?

41:45

For people who are very wealthy, with

41:48

wealth also comes problems, right?

41:51

So it's about... Will

41:54

I not preserve it? Will I blow it up?

41:56

Will I not be able to pass it down

41:58

correctly? If I give it to my children

42:00

too early, will they blow it up? I

42:02

mean, these are all the things will or will it

42:05

and could money lead to conflict within

42:07

the family because one side of the

42:09

family has more money, the other side

42:11

has less. I mean, the

42:15

money can cut

42:17

both ways. And here

42:19

I think we want to try and make sure

42:21

that people have a

42:24

healthy relationship with

42:26

money. You

42:29

said you have raised venture

42:31

money, but not from venture capitalists.

42:34

How much money have you raised and who

42:36

did you raise it from and why is

42:38

it not from venture capitalists? Great question. So

42:42

when I did my first

42:44

round of capital raising, this

42:47

was about

42:52

three years after the company had started. And

42:55

we raised it first from a family

42:57

office. This was

42:59

the Patni family, Amit and

43:01

Arihant Patni, who actually

43:05

kind of approached us because they saw what

43:07

we were building in the wealth management space.

43:10

And they had just had a liquidity

43:12

event, which had happened in 2011. And

43:15

they realized that what we were trying to

43:17

build is exactly what families needed. People

43:20

who did not have a conflict of

43:22

interest when they were advising families, people

43:24

who looked at a more holistic view

43:27

on wealth management, helping families

43:29

as they transitioned out of their

43:32

core business into something else. In fact, that's one

43:34

of the big things that we see in

43:36

Waterfield, that when you have a

43:38

liquidity event, the

43:41

core identity and you exit a business,

43:43

the identity of the family is then

43:45

lost because they're so closely

43:47

affiliated with the company that they

43:49

have to rebuild a new

43:53

identity for themselves, much

43:55

like entrepreneurship actually when you start

43:57

afresh. So they Human

44:00

and Twenty fourteen and that

44:02

oh was a relationship even

44:04

today on the deny hunt

44:06

continue on. I board arm

44:08

and I found that what

44:10

family offices brought was peace

44:12

and capital because. I'm

44:15

the same thing the other direction and the

44:17

of them as. Long term thinking the

44:19

other way and I thought well

44:21

this is good because a worthless

44:23

and business is good. It's time

44:25

to build but it leaves. I'm

44:27

trying to pine a new business

44:29

model. it will take even longer

44:31

and you're with somebody who was

44:33

willing to look at supporting the

44:35

do any of Waterfield. Ah and

44:37

really the values with. The same

44:40

I'm. So that was the

44:42

first shown that happened on the second

44:44

round The happened was in December two

44:47

thousand and nineteen and I said well

44:49

as early like the family offices the

44:51

understand what we're doing and I said

44:53

well let's raise a bit more capital

44:55

that reason for more family offices We

44:58

did that again on and then. Ah

45:00

so the first round we raise

45:02

was about oh I see if

45:04

I remember correctly about two million

45:06

when we raise the first time.

45:09

the second time that we raised

45:11

with is another ah Thirty Prose

45:13

which is primary capital and the

45:15

last on that I did in

45:17

January was another Forty Coors to

45:19

Waterfield. In terms of the funding

45:21

that we've heard has actually been

45:23

very recently guptill assistant. We've built

45:25

this in about ten million over

45:27

the last twelve years. And

45:30

it's a great business it to.

45:32

You can sleep well at night

45:35

you know and it's so. Was

45:38

know what to do. Not true that. Ah

45:41

yes, if so December twenty

45:43

ninth when we raised capital

45:45

they were a few private

45:47

equity and then to funds

45:49

that. Will kind of interested

45:51

in what we were doing up but

45:53

I kept speaking to them and I

45:56

sing look, I think we're quite a

45:58

relief for you and were also. Oh

46:00

we're not least feeding large amounts of

46:02

capital that be like what we were

46:05

building so at that time they will

46:07

for. Then till

46:09

and private equity funds that actually funded

46:11

Waterfield from their Gp arms because I

46:14

said look I'm I'm not going to

46:16

be able to give you are exit

46:18

in a hurry and if you do

46:21

us to the exit than I do

46:23

want to destroy the nice relationship we

46:25

have with each other So they supported

46:28

us on and there were four of

46:30

them there was still there was Tvs

46:32

capital on there was so and settle

46:35

on there was some gotcha and to

46:37

rusty and the own invested into Waterfield.

46:39

Through their Ah Gp arms which

46:41

is really the vehicle to which

46:44

they make their sponsor commitment to

46:46

this on this sub was a

46:48

grateful for that support because I

46:50

think they will always known that

46:52

we wanted to build something different.

46:55

It's going to take longer but

46:57

it was also trying to do

46:59

the right thing. So. They prefer

47:01

for this week money from

47:03

them but not to their

47:05

fund but from their Gp.

47:08

Thank. You

47:10

for the bachelor's degree in

47:12

Mathematics in Seasons. more so

47:14

than Atlantic's. From. Us

47:16

one. I mean.

47:19

To christen segment of the degree

47:22

in mathematics. Was.

47:24

That. Conscious. With.

47:26

That auto? Fernand Leger. Foliage

47:29

and or have a clear to us

47:32

as well. As he said, citizens would

47:34

define my family. And

47:36

after mathematics card you end up in

47:38

back. Oh

47:40

so. I love

47:42

Mats. I mean just as a

47:45

sub saved on my life of

47:47

just absolutely love the subject. Ah

47:50

when I finished school there was

47:52

so. A

47:54

lot of my class was

47:57

going into engineering and does.

48:00

He wouldn't be. The choice

48:02

was to become an engineer and

48:04

yes I will say to him

48:06

very conditioned given a family background

48:08

that one you study hard oh

48:11

you We had the opportunity of

48:13

going to the best schools. I

48:15

keep saying we because I'm one

48:17

of the twin rohingya have a

48:19

twin sister so it was always

48:22

about you know on. My

48:24

parents have. Put. Us

48:26

into the best schools even on

48:29

limited resources that they had because

48:31

they believed that education was the

48:33

most important thing that they could

48:35

give us a single when. They.

48:38

Do that. That is an automatic

48:40

kind of responsibility that you field

48:42

or at least maybe I said

48:44

my sister so that we needed

48:47

to study hard and do well

48:49

in order to. To

48:51

make are we in this would. Be

48:54

sons happened because. I

48:58

remember writing the Id exams not

49:00

getting through and and say well

49:02

what do I do next and.loved

49:05

mathematics so it was like okay

49:07

I will do a degree in

49:09

math because I led the subjects.

49:12

Decent happened. Ah, my sister and

49:14

I both would see some, he

49:16

did economics, i did not medics

49:19

and then on after that. Somewhere

49:22

tobacco saw my mother's mind

49:24

see was very keen that

49:26

my sister and I go

49:28

to England and go. To

49:30

Oxford and Cambridge the swamp the questions

49:33

that one of her subscribers had us.

49:35

And I think a lot of people

49:37

who want to be entrepreneurs one day

49:39

founders, one day wonder. How.

49:42

Did you find your first? And

49:44

colleagues. This

49:48

is where I think the a

49:51

cofounder health and the fact that

49:53

he wasn't So it's so the

49:55

initial employees were all really people

49:58

who michael fondle a new. And

50:04

that's how we kind

50:06

of elected the company.

50:08

I'm. And don't that?

50:11

Though. Cod seats. To the.

50:14

Ah, When you're looking

50:16

and I'm sure one things are

50:18

founders do other always have their

50:20

A.on the sports talented people who

50:22

could join them as colleagues. What?

50:25

Are some of your readers' signatures.

50:28

Where and how are you looking for

50:30

talented people? How do you find them?

50:32

To people who could join. A

50:35

great question. I think talent is really

50:37

what makes the wealth management industry in

50:39

some ways really thick. But

50:42

I always look out

50:44

for the most certainly

50:46

people who will kind

50:48

of put their hand

50:50

up for assignments or

50:52

more challenging rules. And

50:56

you can see that park which

50:59

is there would someone who's not

51:01

quite ready but is willing to

51:03

make that effort to put up

51:05

their hand on some. we've had

51:07

a moving out of their comfort

51:10

zone. Those straightaway tell me that

51:12

there is a curiosity in this

51:14

person and that's something that I

51:16

do look for. Oh, that there

51:19

is a curiosity to understand, a

51:21

little bit more to be able

51:23

to challenge themselves to. That's definitely

51:25

a traitor. Look for the

51:28

other trees I look for

51:30

is really around a authenticity

51:32

and genuineness. Of. A

51:36

single that the years I've met

51:38

so many different kinds of people.

51:40

Quite easy for me to try

51:42

and to distinguish between the ones

51:44

who are. Are

51:46

in some ways. have

51:49

a big talk as opposed to those

51:52

who are a little bit more heavily

51:54

seasoned tends to genuine this for me

51:56

is another big thing that i look

51:58

for which really comes out in

52:00

the communication. So for

52:02

me, perhaps what I look

52:05

out for is how are these

52:07

youngsters or talent or otherwise

52:10

communicating their authenticity, their

52:12

genuineness. And of course,

52:15

are they ready to move a little bit

52:17

out of their comfort zone because our business

52:19

is a new kind of

52:21

business. So even if you come from the

52:23

industry, you have to be ready

52:25

to move out of distribution because where is

52:28

our talent coming from? It's through the distribution

52:30

industry. We have to be

52:32

able to find people who are ready to take

52:34

that leap of faith to come out of distribution

52:36

to look at a new

52:38

business model. So they've got to feel comfortable

52:41

doing something that they've not done before.

52:43

So these are the traits that I would

52:45

really look for. What kind

52:47

of people or what kind of skills

52:50

or talent does it take to make

52:52

it in wealth management? I

52:55

think you need to be a really good listener. You

52:59

need to be able to listen

53:01

first before you prescribe

53:04

anything because ultimately you

53:07

are an advisor, you are a sounding board.

53:10

You can't give advice unless you've

53:12

understood what the problem is. And

53:14

that means really good listening skills. So

53:17

I think one big attribute would be

53:19

listening. The other

53:21

is to be a good

53:24

problem solver because

53:27

ultimately in the business of

53:29

wealth management, particularly advisory, we

53:32

are looking at solutions. We're

53:34

not looking at products. So

53:36

you need to be able

53:39

to orient yourself towards giving

53:41

good solutions to someone.

53:45

So I think that's the other thing that I would look

53:47

at. These

53:50

are the two. Still

53:52

sticking with people and talent.

53:55

Do you have any favorite open-ended questions

53:57

that you tend to ask people? during

54:00

an interview or a first conversation? I

54:06

always ask them what are their career

54:08

aspirations? Because I

54:11

find that when

54:13

people tend to hire, we tend

54:16

to hire sometimes for the immediate

54:19

role. Whereas it's

54:21

very important to understand what is

54:23

the aspiration of that person longer

54:25

term. Because you may bring them

54:28

into your company now, but

54:30

if longer term you've not understood what

54:32

their aspiration is, you may lose

54:34

them within a few years. So

54:37

for me, I find by asking them

54:39

that question, I get a very good

54:41

sense of who

54:44

they want to be, who they are, where

54:46

they want to get to, which

54:48

may get missed out when you're asking for

54:51

the immediate role that you're hiring. This is

54:53

one of my favorite questions to ask. From

54:55

the time that you've started Waterfield Advisors to

54:58

today, have you seen an evolution

55:00

in the answers that you're getting to

55:03

this question, the last 10, 12

55:05

years? What

55:07

are your career aspirations? I

55:11

actually find most people get stumped at that

55:13

question. They've never thought that far. Or

55:16

they've not. Isn't it ironic that

55:18

professionals not

55:23

having thought through, if

55:26

you're in an interview, one would assume that the

55:28

first thing that you would have

55:30

clarity on is what

55:32

are my career aspirations? And

55:35

it's not there. So

55:39

I actually sometimes try to help them out

55:41

saying, you know, well, where

55:44

would you like to be? What kind of roles would

55:46

you like to do? And you try to just make

55:48

it a little easier for them to try and get

55:51

their head round. But

55:53

that's something that surprised me, I will

55:55

say that, Rohan. Has

55:59

Waterfield Advisors ever

56:01

had any near-death experiences? I'm

56:07

assuming the one that you spoke of when you

56:09

started and like about a year in. Yeah,

56:11

that was near-death. After

56:15

that, we've

56:17

always just continued

56:19

to plod along because,

56:21

and I think that's another

56:23

very important trait as an

56:25

entrepreneur is just determination,

56:29

resolve, belief.

56:32

You just know that you're going to

56:34

make it. You're

56:37

going to whatever are the ups and downs. I

56:40

think that mental strength is extremely

56:43

important, certainly for founders, to

56:46

be able to go through

56:48

whatever are the ups and downs that the

56:50

journey will have. It's

56:52

never going to be smooth sailing. I think that's one thing that

56:55

all of us as entrepreneurs

56:57

will know. But

56:59

to be able to manage

57:02

that situation well, to be able

57:04

to keep your mental

57:06

and physical strengths throughout that period,

57:08

I think those are critical in

57:11

any journey. As

57:13

CEO, what is it that you

57:16

feel you add most value to

57:18

Waterfield Advisors? I

57:21

think the vision, I think

57:24

that's the ability

57:27

to have

57:30

that upfront and stated. The

57:33

other, interestingly, when

57:35

I found that even leadership

57:38

styles have had to evolve,

57:41

in the early days, it was always about leading

57:43

from the front. Rolling

57:46

up your sleeves, doing whatever it took. So

57:49

that you're kind of there, you're in it,

57:51

you're with them, you're with the troops, and

57:54

everyone is out there to go on

57:56

a business. When I think about

57:58

what it has to do with the future, I think that's a very important has

58:00

to be going forward. I think

58:02

of it more like leading

58:05

from behind or basically as

58:07

a shepherd because now you

58:09

have a situation

58:11

where you've got senior people in

58:14

the right role to take the

58:16

business forward and your

58:18

role is more about keeping the flock

58:20

together so that there are no

58:22

kind of out, you know, if somebody is straying,

58:24

how do you bring them back into the fold.

58:27

So I've even sensed as an

58:30

entrepreneur, my own leadership style has

58:33

had to change from leading

58:35

from the front to actually now saying,

58:37

okay, I'm going to lead like

58:39

a shepherd from behind. Was that

58:42

hard because that transition sometimes isn't

58:44

easy for founders who used to

58:46

being hard charging in the trenches?

58:48

Very, very hard, very hard

58:52

because you always or maybe

58:54

it's a bit, maybe it's just me

58:56

as a personality, you want to be

58:58

more in control. And I can tell

59:00

you that for me, I'm a bit

59:03

of a perfectionist. I was about

59:05

to add perfection, you added it yourself.

59:07

And that's very hard to be able

59:09

to say it doesn't have

59:12

to be 100% right. It's okay

59:14

if it's someone else needs to do it 80% for

59:16

them to discover it.

59:18

Exactly. Exactly. But that's

59:21

a mental shift that I've had to

59:23

make. It's not been

59:25

easy. But I also realized and even now

59:27

I won't even say that I'm there. I

59:30

will say that it's a journey for me

59:32

as an individual to let go

59:34

a little and to make sure

59:37

that I can allow the others to

59:39

develop and let them have the journey

59:42

that I've had in the past. How

59:45

much of a planned person are you

59:48

when it comes to your week? The

59:50

week starting out what percentage of

59:52

your calendar is already

59:55

filled up and what percentage is very

59:58

planned. very planned in

1:00:01

that sense that I

1:00:04

have a lot of meetings with

1:00:06

clients and that's really where I

1:00:08

spend a lot of my time

1:00:10

as well. So their schedules tend

1:00:12

to be quite sacrosanct.

1:00:15

So for me, because

1:00:18

of that, my schedule is quite

1:00:20

planned and programmed. What

1:00:22

I do try to do is keep half

1:00:25

a day a week without any

1:00:27

meetings because I realized that

1:00:29

if I fill the entire week with

1:00:31

meetings, I don't have enough

1:00:33

thinking time. And for me,

1:00:36

having that ability to just go

1:00:38

back to what I would

1:00:40

call my meet time is really important. So

1:00:43

what I've tried to do is half a

1:00:45

day a week is with

1:00:47

no meetings so that I can just

1:00:49

think whether it's

1:00:51

about a particular day, not a

1:00:53

particular day. Not necessarily a

1:00:55

particular day. It normally tends to be

1:00:57

midweek because I think... I

1:00:59

ask because I keep Wednesday's meetings

1:01:02

for myself. Exactly. So Monday,

1:01:04

impossible. Friday, definitely not. You're

1:01:06

already thinking about the weekend.

1:01:08

So midweek, it's either a

1:01:11

Tuesday or a Wednesday. And what does

1:01:13

that time look like? So that time

1:01:15

looks like thinking about, you know,

1:01:17

there are some clients that I

1:01:19

may manage directly. So if

1:01:22

I have to plan for a meeting with them,

1:01:24

I like to think about what

1:01:26

I'm going to discuss with them. It's

1:01:29

about time that I would use to read

1:01:31

a report that I haven't been able to

1:01:33

read. And of

1:01:35

course, these days, we just did a

1:01:37

huge of information. Are you an open

1:01:39

tab person? Do you have lots of open

1:01:42

tabs in your browser or do you save

1:01:44

them? I save it. I actually save them.

1:01:46

So what I do is when I see a good report, I

1:01:48

always save it so that

1:01:50

I can read it on a flight or I

1:01:52

can just read it over the weekend. Or sometimes

1:01:54

I read it during this half a day that

1:01:56

I keep aside because it's something interesting that would

1:01:58

have piqued my interest. So

1:02:01

for me, having that half a day is

1:02:03

just to be able to figure out

1:02:06

a little bit about what

1:02:08

are my priorities and

1:02:11

just give me that space and time

1:02:13

to do that. What

1:02:15

are some of the things that you

1:02:18

spend a lot of time on but

1:02:22

don't enjoy, but add a

1:02:25

lot of value to Waterfield Advisors

1:02:28

as CEO? These are things that you

1:02:30

do as CEO even though we do not enjoy it,

1:02:33

but they're absolutely essential to

1:02:35

Waterfield Advisors. I

1:02:37

think given where we are in the phase

1:02:39

of our journey, I spend

1:02:42

a lot of time on people and

1:02:45

both internal within the organization

1:02:47

and external. External

1:02:50

I love. Internal

1:02:52

it's like how do you bring everybody up

1:02:55

the curve and because

1:02:57

we are still quite

1:02:59

a young organization, helping

1:03:01

people with their leadership as well

1:03:03

and how they come across and

1:03:06

their own aspirations

1:03:08

and helping them reach that is

1:03:11

something that takes up a lot of time. I

1:03:14

don't always enjoy it because

1:03:17

it means I'm taking out time

1:03:19

from being out there

1:03:21

and talking to clients more because

1:03:24

that's something that I enjoy. But I also

1:03:26

know that if it didn't

1:03:28

happen, it's

1:03:30

not securing the future of the company. So

1:03:33

it's something that you have to do. But

1:03:41

I sometimes wish it

1:03:44

would be easier for people to just

1:03:47

get on with it, but

1:03:49

that doesn't happen. We're human beings at

1:03:51

the end of the day. Everyone has

1:03:54

their own insecurities, their own,

1:03:56

and for us particularly when we've scaled up our

1:03:59

business so quickly. In the

1:04:01

last one year, you have people who've been

1:04:03

with you for a long time in Waterfield.

1:04:06

You've got the newer group that's come in integrating

1:04:08

both, making sure that the culture is

1:04:10

right, that the culture is still preserved

1:04:12

to what it is. Those

1:04:15

are the things that take up a lot

1:04:17

of my time or have more recently. And

1:04:21

I sometimes think that I should be out

1:04:24

there more. And you think

1:04:26

that, but I also then tell myself that

1:04:28

this is important. Thank

1:04:30

you for listening to First Principles, the

1:04:32

weekly leadership podcast from The Ken. That's

1:04:34

right. From this month on,

1:04:36

you can expect episodes from First Principles

1:04:39

every single Thursday. Meanwhile,

1:04:41

and in parallel, the First Principles

1:04:43

newsletter is also weekly now. We're

1:04:46

hitting new records each week

1:04:48

for community participation, with subscribers

1:04:50

sending in book recommendations, personal

1:04:52

habit, favorite songs, and of

1:04:54

course, my favorite, silent Sunday

1:04:56

photographs. So if you're a

1:04:58

fan of mental models, leadership, decision

1:05:01

making, entrepreneurship, and self-reflection, you can

1:05:03

rely on us twice each week.

1:05:05

Thursday's with the First Principles podcast

1:05:08

and Sunday's with the First Principles

1:05:10

newsletter. You can find links

1:05:12

to sign up or submit recommendations in the

1:05:14

show notes. Before I go,

1:05:16

I have a request. If you

1:05:18

like our work, please tell us, rate

1:05:21

or review First Principles wherever you get

1:05:23

your podcast. It's honestly the best charge

1:05:25

of a podcast quality and the most

1:05:28

reliable way for someone new to find

1:05:30

us. This

1:05:32

episode was hosted by me, Rohan

1:05:34

Dharmakumar, and produced by Anushka Mukherjee.

1:05:37

The audio editing is by Rajiv C.

1:05:39

and our resident audio engineer. See

1:05:41

you next Thursday. Thank

1:06:00

you.