Learning to follow the opportunity into its resource demands

I initially supported a proposition to extend the funded period for a defined business-credit programme from 45 to 75 days. The commercial paper showed additional annual income, and I treated that as stronger evidence than it was. Rebuilding the steady-state funding requirement changed the account. With the same ₹60 crore of funded principal flowing each 30-day month, the illustrated outstanding amount rose from ₹90 crore to ₹150 crore. The company would need ₹60 crore more funding without originating more each month. I had allowed the income view to get ahead of the balance-sheet demand.

I grew up in Bathinda in a Sikh family and studied economics at Zemvani School of Economics, completing the degree in June 1996. I speak Punjabi, Hindi and English, with working Marathi developed after moving to Nashik. In July 1996 I joined Zemquli Commercial Studies as a research analyst. The fictional company employed 42 people and recorded ₹5.8 crore FY 1997 revenue. I worked in a five-person research group under a project manager, without direct reports or spending authority. The work taught me to ask what a commercial estimate included before accepting its apparent precision.

In April 2003 I became research manager. Zemquli had 96 employees and ₹18 crore FY 2004 revenue. I led nine analysts through two project leads within ₹82 lakh annual function expense, reporting to the research director. I learned to give a proposed market's constraints the same attention as its size. A client might recognise an opportunity but lack the funding, operating capability or risk appetite required to pursue it. The research should help a decision rather than merely produce a larger number to support a preference already held.

I joined Qavrethi Receivables Finance in September 2009 and moved to Nashik. The lender employed 68 people, with ₹180 crore outstanding loans and ₹29 crore FY 2010 income. As business-planning manager, I led six colleagues within ₹94 lakh annual expense and reported to the CFO. Moving inside a lender made the timing of cash more tangible. A proposed product could improve an income estimate while keeping funds committed for longer. I needed to understand that relationship without pretending that planning ownership conferred authority to price credit or arrange funding independently.

The head-of-portfolio-strategy appointment followed in June 2015. Qavrethi had 128 employees, ₹460 crore outstanding loans and ₹78 crore FY 2016 income. I led nine colleagues through two managers within ₹2.1 crore annual expense, reporting to the CEO. The work involved comparing propositions across their resource demands and risk characteristics. A list of separate legal buyers could obscure dependence on the same economic group. A portfolio offered for purchase could contain invoices whose face value did not settle the amount ultimately collectible. I learned to ask which professional assessment the strategic comparison still needed.

I became CSO in February 2021. Today I lead twelve colleagues through three managers, with ₹4.2 crore approved FY 2026–27 function expense. Ravindra Qezquli is CEO and Saba Tezvuri is CFO. The company has 190 employees, four service centres, ₹840 crore outstanding loans and ₹146 crore FY 2026 income. An industrial investment company owns 45% and a private-capital fund 55%; I hold no personal equity. I present strategic choices to directors as an executive but have no statutory appointment.

The longer-duration proposal made me reconsider how I presented growth. At the stated 12% annual funding-cost assumption, the additional ₹60 crore requirement implied ₹7.2 crore annual cost, against ₹5.4 crore additional income in the commercial model before that funding cost. Those were illustrative assumptions, not a forecast of current market rates or a realised loss. The comparison was nevertheless enough to show that the original paper had omitted a material consequence. I withdrew my recommendation for the broad extension and asked the relevant owners to examine a narrower proposition with different economics.

Other cases required similar care about the object being compared. A higher fee accompanied a proposed change in who carried buyer-default risk. A buyer list needed group-level analysis before it could support a diversification claim. A portfolio-purchase assessment retained disputed and reduced invoices rather than equate face value with collectible value. A committed funding arrangement cost more under the stated assumptions but supported a different planning horizon from a rolling alternative. I did not make these decisions into claims that smaller growth or higher cost is always preferable. The point was to make the trade-off available for the proper owners to decide.

My next development step is a first outside board contribution. I would bring experience of the cash, risk and evidence behind a growth proposition, while learning the wider responsibility of collective oversight. Fictional IICA registration began in April 2026; the proficiency assessment remains unfinished and no exemption is represented. Twenty-four days is provisional and must be assessed with employer consent and relationships. A useful appointment would require a clear contribution and complementary financial, legal and operating expertise, not an assumption that a strategy title supplies every answer.