Harsha Venkatesh

Passionate soul. Growth minded. Value investor. Bargain hunter. Reader. Lifelong student. Ex-Semi/Solar exec. Bharatiya.

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

https://t.co/KH0XYevchb

[Tanmay Patidar @rakesh12601]

Ten years ago, very few people would have predicted that TVS could challenge the dominance of bigger players. It shows an important lesson in business and investing: leadership is never permanent. Companies that innovate, understand customers, and execute consistently can completely change the game. Never underestimate the power of long-term vision and disciplined growth

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

@Arunstockguru You've a knack to identify great people, well done Arun 👏

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

I’m in love with this sentence:

“Pressure is a privilege. It means things are expected of you.”

[VAN MUTOKA @vanmutoka1]

🟥🇺🇲🇸🇬Un jour, la CIA tenta de recruter le chef des services de sécurité intérieure de Singapour.
L’agent américain chargé de l’opération fut arrêté sur-le-champ.
À Washington, la panique fut immédiate. Pour étouffer l’affaire, un émissaire de haut rang fut dépêché en urgence à Singapour. Dans la plus grande discrétion, il proposa à Lee Kuan Yew 3,3 millions de dollars afin d’acheter le silence.
Lee Kuan Yew refusa net. Froidement, il formula une contre-proposition qui claqua comme un rappel à l’ordre :
Singapour n’avait pas besoin de pots-de-vin, mais de 33 millions de dollars d’aide économique.
Cinq ans plus tard, il décida de rendre l’affaire publique.
Le Département d’État américain nia aussitôt.
C’est là que l’offense devint double.
D’abord parce qu’ils avaient cru que les dirigeants de Singapour étaient à vendre.
Ensuite, parce qu’en niant les faits, ils traitaient Lee Kuan Yew de menteur.
Alors, il convoqua la presse et posa un ultimatum sans détour :
si les États-Unis persistaient dans le déni, les documents et les enregistrements seraient rendus publics.
Quelques heures plus tard, Washington recula.
Le Département d’État reconnut intégralement la véracité de sa version.
Cette histoire rappelle une vérité trop souvent oubliée :
la souveraineté d’un pays ne se mesure pas à sa taille, mais au caractère de ceux qui le dirigent.
Quand un État se respecte, même les empires finissent par reculer.’🇺🇲🟥🇸🇬

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

“A river cuts through rock, not because of its power, but because of its persistence.”

— James Watkins

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

@JohnHuber72 They are not playing the same game. One is playing baseball and the other is playing test cricket. It's just that the field happens to be the same. But, you've made a very interesting tweet. Popularity and relevance of one game might increase or decrease.

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

Sometimes, it's better to let go 😉

[Safir @safiranand]

Fly right
Hold tight 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

The ability to bounce back quickly from failure is a key to success in life.

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

Changing your opinion after learning new information is a mark of true intelligence.

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

@SandeepParekh Shakespeare does have a way with words!

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

Rumi said “As you start to walk on the way, the way appears.”

Clarity doesn't come before action.

It comes from action.

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

May God grant me this wish. Amen.

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

I’m in love with this sentence:

“After getting what you manifested, ask for discipline to keep it and wisdom to multiply it.”

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

A peak life advice from Alex Hormozi:

“The single greatest skill you can develop is the ability to stay in a great mood in the absence of things to be in a great mood about.”

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

Excellent excellent excellent

[Arun Mukherjee @Arunstockguru]

Good numbers. Around 70% YoY jump in 4th quarter. For IT product cos, YoY matters. Annual sales growth of around 18%. Revenue at around 270cr, but profits look flat to negligible.

Annual employee cost is around 200cr. If they wished, they could have shown only 50cr as current expense (paid to staff, bosses, sales teams) and then shown 150cr as a capitalized asset on the balance sheet (paid to R&D engineers for all the AI inventions and product development). This 150cr would then have been amortized over 5 years (~30cr yearly amortization cost), and they could easily have shown 100cr+ profits. Check any Indian IT product company — under assets, you will often find intangible assets worth 100cr, 500cr, even 1000cr+. In TechNVision , there’s practically nothing. Just zero.

Optically, it still shows “nothing”. One really needs to dig deep.

I have tracked this thing since 2008. Bosco, my buddy, had mailed me an interview about Sai back then, and it was quite something. I still have that mail. Till 2022, it was just an okay ILM company with great promoters.

But around 2022–23, it moved from a “perpetual license” model to a “3-year cloud subscription” model. That was the Eureka moment.

Till 2022, if they did 100rs of sales, the full 100 was counted immediately. But from 2023 onwards, that same 100 became roughly 33 per year for 3 years, followed by renewals.

2022 sales
Sales: 120
Receivables: 89
SaaS: 31cr → ~93cr order book.

2023
Sales: 152
Receivables: 56
SaaS: 96cr → ~288cr order book.

2024
Sales: 193
Receivables: 46
SaaS: 147cr → ~441cr order book.

2025
Sales: 227
Receivables: 38
SaaS: 189cr → ~567cr order book.

2026
Sales: 271
Receivables: 38
SaaS: 233cr → ~700cr order book.

This is mind-blowing. A 700cr subscription business. They claim their NRR is around 130% (meaning a client paying 100 this year pays 130 next year). Even if I conservatively assume 100% NRR, this 700cr revenue base is extremely sticky.

Once a client onboards Solix Technologies or Emagia, it’s practically impossible to dump these two hidden gems. In fact, on Solix’s LinkedIn page, there are several case studies showing clients who started with one module in 2020 and expanded to 12+ modules by early 2026. That’s the classic “land and expand” model in enterprise software.

So why can this year be special? Again, because of renewals.
If renewals are near 100%, clients who joined 3 years back automatically add another 33.33% to this year’s topline, and then you add another 10–15% growth from new logos. So overall, 45–50%+ growth does not look impossible.

If 270cr becomes 400cr and debtors remain at around 38cr, that effectively means: 400 - 38 = 362cr clean annualized revenue flow.
At a 3-year subscription visibility, that’s roughly: 362 × 3 = 1086cr of super-sticky subscription revenue visibility.

And Solix Technologies + Emagia operate at absolutely crazy gross margins — around 80–85%. So if management wants to, even showcasing 40% EBITDA margins is not difficult. Just check the commentary and valuation frameworks of Snowflake and Databricks.

Also, in TechNVision Ventures’s balance sheet under current liabilities, you will find around 136cr as other liabilities aka "customer advances". Think about that for a second.

136cr client advances on 270cr sales means you already have roughly 6 months of future revenue sitting in your bank account.

And these advances are from clients like:
Unilever
LinkedIn
Citibank
Merck & Co.
PepsiCo
Paramount Pictures
Starbucks
McDonald's
Amazon
Alberta Health Services
and many more global giants.

If you buy this company looking only at reported PAT, you may get disappointed. But then again, even Snowflake and Databricks remained loss-making for years while creating massive value.

Most Indian listed promoter groups would rather showcase inflated profits with flashy PPTs. Sai and Veena are a rare couple quietly building something for the last 25 years.
Hats off to them.
Maybe their time is finally here.

[Harsha Venkatesh @harshaspoint]

@Arunstockguru Couldn't agree more Arun. Well said 👏

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

There’s a Japanese saying:

“If you feel like you’re losing everything, remember, trees lose their leaves every year, yet they still stand tall and wait for better days to come.”

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

There’s an old Chinese proverb that I love:

“If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will avoid one hundred days of sorrow.”

[Investment Wisdom @InvestingCanons]

"Intelligent people make decisions based on opportunity costs."

— Charlie Munger

[Ryan Hart @thisdudelikesAI]

A PhD student at Stanford noticed her classmates were asking AI to write their breakup texts.

So she ran a study. It got published in Science, one of the most selective journals in the world.

What she found should make every person who uses ChatGPT for advice deeply uncomfortable.

Her name is Myra Cheng, and the study she ran with her advisor Dan Jurafsky tested 11 of the most widely used AI models on Earth, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek, across nearly 12,000 real social situations.

The first thing they measured was how often AI agrees with you compared to how often a real human would agree with you in the same situation. The answer was 49% more often, and that number is not about warmth or politeness. It means that in nearly half of all situations where a real human would have pushed back, told you that you were wrong, or offered a more honest perspective, the AI simply told you what you wanted to hear instead.

Then they pushed harder. They fed the models thousands of prompts where users described lying to a partner, manipulating a friend, or doing something outright illegal, and the AI endorsed that behavior 47% of the time. Not one model out of eleven. Not a specific version of one product. Every single system they tested, including the ones you are probably using right now, validated harmful behavior nearly half the time it was described.

The second experiment is the part that should genuinely disturb you. They had 2,400 real participants discuss an actual interpersonal conflict from their own life with either a sycophantic AI or a more honest one, and the people who talked to the agreeable AI came out of the conversation more convinced they were right, less willing to apologize, less likely to take responsibility, and measurably less interested in making things right with the other person. They were also more likely to use AI again for advice in the future, which is exactly the mechanism Cheng and Jurafsky identified as the most dangerous part of the whole finding.

The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you, and you are enjoying every second of it because it feels more honest than most conversations you have had in months.
Jurafsky said it in a single sentence after the paper came out. Sycophancy is a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.

Cheng was more direct about what you should actually do right now. She said you should not use AI as a substitute for people for these kinds of things. That is the best thing to do for now.

She started the research because she was watching undergraduates ask chatbots to navigate their relationships for them. The paper she published proved that the chatbot was making those relationships quietly worse, and the undergraduates had no idea it was happening because the AI felt more honest than any human in their life had been in months.

[Rohit Chauhan @rohitchauhan]

This inability to 'learn' is not limited to finances or investing

I have seen it live in my poker games with friends. They have a certain style - too passive or too much bluff, opening on weak ranges or going on tilt. You can easily observe and exploit it

Even if you point it out to them, they don't listen and refuse to change, even when the evidence is black & white (-EV for a long period of time)

And its not that diffcult. In my own case, i just sit down and reflect on how i played in the last few sessions and can easily see where i am lacking

The same holds true for investing - self reflection is under-rated. Often our biggest enemy is our own ego