Review of Online Food Delivery Industry of India

Earlier people used to go to the hotel, but the scenario has changed drastically in last few years. Due to changes in lifestyle and recent pandemic situations the lifestyle of Indians has changed considerably. This has given tremendous boost to the online food delivery business. In recent time, India has witnessed rapid increase in number of food delivery startups, supporting the aspirations of millions of urban citizens of India. Currently Indian food delivery market is occupied by global, national as well as local business establishments in this food delivery industry. Zomato, Foodpanda, Swiggy, Uber Eats, Domino’s, Pizza Hut and Mc Donald’s are a few major names which are predominant. The users get wider choice of all the online available hotels through menu of the restaurants at a very reasonable cost and that too at their home. It saves time, travelling cost of the users. All this process of food delivery system comprises few fundamental components. Among that the first is the cooking of the food product as per the requirements of the online customers and delivering these food products through online platform is the basic business model which is used. As the customer’s choices are varying with time this system will be evolving with innovative ideas to meet the changing requirements and expectations of the customers. This business models uses basically requirement of the customers; motivating them for bringing the dynamism within the market as well as within the food industry and delivering the food through the delivery personal. For ensuring the success of this online delivery model the entrepreneurs has to ensure few things which includes certain features which will be; taking care of various aspects of market as well as technological aspects. Also the opportunities and challenges that will be faced by this online food delivery system will be more clear as the time will pass. The sustainability about this food delivery business models will be depending on the benefits which will be provided to the customers and user and how much it continues to attract the venture capitalist and various investors in this online food delivery business.

Effect of Financial Clusters on Startup Mergers and Acquisitions

The conventional wisdom has maintained that being in proximity to entrepreneurial ecosystems helps startups to raise financing, develop and grow. In this paper, we examine the effect of a major component of an entrepreneurial ecosystem-financial or venture capital clusters on the exit of a startup through mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We find that probability of successful exit through M&A increases if the venture capitalist invested in the startup is in a venture capital (VC) cluster. Location of the startup in a top VC cluster is not significant for success once we control for the location of the VC in a top VC cluster.Our results are robust to different specifications of the models that use different time periods, reputation of VC, industry, and the quality of the startup company. Our results provide evidence for VCs, startups and policy makers who want to better understand the components of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their relation to the M&A exits of startups.

Replacing Management or Not: Contract Renegotiation to Prevent Double Moral Hazards of Venture Capital Investments

During the venture capital development, replacing the management work team or keeping up the status quo is a key strategy choice for venture capitalist and venture entrepreneur about the long-term development of enterprise and the control right transferring. In fact, the contract designing focuses on the distribution of cash flow to encourage both efforts in order to avoid double moral hazard, and the strategy behavior has similar effects according to the developing condition of venture enterprise. In this paper, we consider both contract design and strategic behavior, regarding this strategic behavior choice as a motivator and combining strategic behavior with financial instrument options. The main innovation is to redesign and optimize the contract based on dynamic perspective, which will analyze initial contract designed to motivate both sides’ effort if a venture enterprise is in good state, and then renegotiate whether to replace the management work team or keep up the status quo according to the venture enterprise’s development state in the process of venture investment cooperation. The paper also puts forward some conclusions: joint effort of both sides can be motivated through strategic behavior choice and then lead to increasing the overall value of the venture enterprise; after the venture enterprise has gained private benefits in the early stage, the venture capitalist needs to make appropriate assignments and demisability in benefits to remotivate the venture enterprise’s efforts, aiming to further balance venture enterprise’s private benefits and the earnings redistributed by venture capitalist.

Venture Capital-Backed Firms, Unavoidable Value-Destroying Trade Sales, and Fair Value Protections

This paper investigates the implications of the fair value protections contemplated by the standard corporate contract (i.e., the standard contract form for which corporate law provides) for the entrepreneur–venture capitalist relationship, focusing, in particular, on unavoidable value-destroying trade sales. First, it demonstrates that the typical entrepreneur–venture capitalist contract does institutionalize the venture capitalist’s liquidity needs, allowing, under some circumstances, for counterintuitive instances of contractually-compliant value destruction. Unavoidable value-destroying trade sales are the most tangible example. Next, it argues that fair value protections can prevent the entrepreneur and venture capitalist from allocating the value that these transactions generate as they would want. Then, it shows that the reality of venture capital-backed firms calls for a process of adaptation of the standard corporate contract that has one major step in the deactivation or re-shaping of fair value protections. Finally, it argues that a standard corporate contract aiming to promote social welfare through venture capital should feature flexible fair value protections.

The Braun-Stammfest Industrial Group

In addition to his banking activities, Schumpeter actively pursued the ‘promoter’s profit’ during his brief and unfortunate history as a proto-venture capitalist. The activities that have so far received little attention from the research community are described in Chapter 9. Schumpeter invested on a grand scale in the foundation of new industrial firms. Given the poor condition of the industrial sites after years of a war economy, the economic rationale appeared sound, but the financial scheme, timing, and practical execution were not. In addition to spending his own wealth, he borrowed heavily from his privileged bank account and raised considerable funds from third parties. Having established large leverage, he was unable to refinance short-term loans when Austria was hit with a major banking crisis in 1924. As the factories failed before they could produce any significant cash flow, Schumpeter learned the perils of high leverage the hard way.

Three Disruptive Models of New Spatial Planning: “Attention”, “Surveillance” or “Sustainable” Capitalisms?

This paper compares and contrasts three disruptive models of potential and actual new kinds of spatial planning. These include “seasteading”, “smart neighbourhoods” and “renewable spatial systems”. Each is labelled with distinctive discursive titles, respectively: “Attention Capitalism”; “Surveillance Capitalism” and “Sustainable Capitalism” denoting the different lineaments of each, although they all have their origins in the Silicon Valley techno-entrepreneurial milieu. In each case, while the path dependences of trajectories have diverged the progenitors were often erstwhile business partners at the outset. The paper is interested in qualitative methodology and proposes “pattern recognition” as a means to disclose the deep psychological, sociological, political and economic levels that inform the surface appearances and functions of the diverse spatial planning modes and designs that have been advanced or inferred from empirically observable initiator practice. “Dark Triad” analysis is entailed in actualising psychological deep structures. Each of the three models is discussed and the lineaments of their initiators’ ideas are disclosed. Each “school” has a designated mentor(s), respectively: academic B. J. Fogg and venture capitalist Peter Thiel for “Attention Capitalism”, “smart city” planner Dan Doctoroff for “Surveillance Capitalism” and “renewable energineer” and Elon Musk for “Sustainable Capitalism”, the eventual winner of this existential “dark versus light triad” urban planning contest.