15 минут — и БИЗНЕС ТР*П. На чём ЛОМАЮТСЯ 99% ПРОЕКТОВ на МИЛЛИАРДЫ? CEO инвестфонда Артём Андросов

Business model & strategy (Dom Foundation / Artem Androsov)

• Operates as a “subscription family office” (wealth management + deal sourcing + portfolio monitoring).
• Cycle for investor capital: accumulation → increase → preservation Members are at different stages, so risk and strategy differ.

Deal funnel & selection discipline

• Reviewed 1,000+ projects over 3.2 years.
• Typically screens 200–500 projects per year, narrowing to 5–10 deals per year.
• Over 3.2 years, invested 3.5B RUB across 8 countries.

Risk posture shifted by external uncertainty

• Political/economic uncertainty described as “off the charts.”
• Reduced risky deals to ~zero (explicitly mentions venture capital largely stopped).
• Shifted toward “conservation strategies” aligned with investor preference.

---

Metrics, KPIs, targets mentioned

Investment volume / throughput

• 3.5B RUB invested over 3.2 years
• >1,000 projects reviewed
• 200–500 reviewed per year
• 5–10 deals per year

Transaction sizes

• Typical equity/check size: $1–5M (as the “usual” range)
• Loan financing can be smaller; minimum cited: 50M RUB loan

Current year activity (as described)

• Issued ~300M RUB in loans to developers for short-term tasks (generally up to 1 year).
• Example filtering rate included to illustrate low acceptance and heavy due diligence:
  • A separate “out of fifty… we invested in two” example implies ~4% acceptance at that stage.
  • Another “~20 out of 50” statement appeared in the context of stage filtering (overall message: acceptance is low and diligence is heavy).

Member economics / cost structure

• Internal “office/team” estimated at 20–30M RUB/year
• Dom Foundation membership fee: ~1M RUB/year

Deal timeline

• If early fit is confirmed: 3–4 months to structure/close.
• Standout example (school building): basic legal outline assembled within 1 week (Mon meet principal → Tue meet seller → Fri legal obligation).

Examples of returns / promised yields (cautionary)

• Mentions an alleged case promising 35% per annum guaranteed—presented as a red-flag fraud-like pattern, not as Dom’s performance.

---

Operating process / playbook (how deals are run)

Partnered deal cycle

1. Review projects
2. Prepare them for collective investment
3. Invest
4. Manage post-investment
5. Collect reports
6. Maximize exit probability while reducing transaction risk

Portfolio monitoring function

• Implements financial monitoring plus control of physical payments to investors.
• Example: 2 years of financial monitoring on a complex Indonesia project (Villa Boeng context).

“Investor readiness” pre-check (for entrepreneurs)

• Determine within first 5–10 minutes whether the project is economically investable.
• Follow with ~1 hour of dialogue to assess whether a deal structure can be built.
• If mutual desire exists: proceed to 3–4 month structuring.

---

What Dom looks for in entrepreneurs (and why many fail)

Top requirements

• Business economics can support investor capital Investor money is more expensive than internal/bank money; economics must “make sense.”

• Legal/tax readiness Many deals arrive with “literally zero” legal framework.

• Team can work with investor-grade contracting Corporate agreements and legal structure capability are required.

• Dialogue + listening Entrepreneurs must accept professional investment mechanics.

Common failure modes

• Treat investor money like a cheaper extension of development/bank financing.
• Don’t understand risk allocation and expect the same returns as the operating model.
• Wrong fundraising purpose: raising capital to cover cash gaps (“painkillers for bleeding”) instead of accelerating growth.
• Over-reliance on a single money source (often banks), increasing fragility.

Stated probability

• Dom’s view: ~90% of entrepreneurs are not ready to receive investment.

---

Concrete examples / case studies referenced

1. Dividend-like hospitality project (Tyumen)

   • Total project: ~250M RUB
   • Dom invested: 100M RUB
   • Founder closed: 150M RUB
   • Launched in November
   • Described as a “dividend business” with no clear exit point (reinvestment likely ongoing).

2. Moscow rental acquisition (private school building)

   • Bought a building pre-leased for 10 years
   • Outcome: rental income (ready-made income asset)

3. Fitstars venture story (Russia, 2022)

   • Dom invested in 2022
   • Founder later bought out most investors
   • Investor received a “fairly good return” (no exact numbers provided)

4. Tashkent office building

   • Order of magnitude: ~$3.5M
   • Purchased in September, renovating
   • Already has three rental offers
   • Exit target implied: 3–4 years after uncertainty

5. Ermalaev Baths / entrepreneur dialogue

   • Founder had many operational capabilities, but the team didn’t understand investor mechanics.
   • Took ~6 months of dialogue to collect money for the project.

6. School building redevelopment with license constraints (Moscow)

   • Unique asset: building eligible for an educational license (only a few such buildings in Moscow)
   • Dom’s role: acquired property at time-sensitive pricing and structured rapidly
   • Timeline: negotiations → legal obligation within ~1 week
   • Result (claims): investor acquired property value growth (at least 2x) while rent began after 7 months
   • Key takeaway: timing + unique licensing + structured execution.

7. Indonesia “Villa Boeng”

   • Complex deal; Dom provided financial monitoring for 2 years
   • Highlighted as globally notable and operationally surreal; monitoring/controls emphasized as value.

---

Entrepreneurship & investment playbook: risk structuring (3 paradigms)

Dom stresses that developers often treat investor offers as the same, but there are 3 legally/economically distinct structures:

1. Unsecured / indirect loan risk Investor funds land purchase, but repayment depends on later clearing encumbrances → investor takes entrepreneur risk unless guarantees/structure transfer it.

2. Secured loan via usable collateral Unsold apartments provided as security → investor risk lowers; bank-like security logic.

3. Joint-partner entry (profit sharing / co-ownership) Investor becomes a business participant sharing entrepreneurial risk from the start → different legal form and expected returns.

---

Marketing & GTM angle (how investor “products” should be sold)

• Developers must treat investment like a marketable product, not just “asking for money.”
• Need to “sell” an investment instrument similarly to how they sell apartments:
  • Build brand + loyal audience
  • Reduce customer (investor) acquisition cost (implied) and risk perception

Concrete market example from the talk

• A large developer selling ZPI (ZIPIF / similar fund-like structure) instead of apartments, using operator + broker to sell “shares” backed by future rental/service models.
• Dom notes dissatisfaction with the exit/investor liquidity path—who/when professionalizes selling the fund interest.

---

Pricing logic: risk premium & cost of money

• Investor capital usually costs more than bank finance because investors require a risk premium.
• Dom reframes investor rationality: investors can still be rational if they:
  • provide risk diversification (not only one creditor like the bank)
  • reduce overall portfolio fragility
  • unlock opportunities when bank financing is constrained
• Mentions a benchmark example: bank deposits ~14% p.a. (illustrative reference).

---

Governance / security mechanisms

• Mentions trust + community as a practical filter.
• “Community Office” model (outsourced team + membership subscription) presented as an anti-fraud / anti-mistake operating design (not foolproof).
• Emphasizes:
  • proper legal documentation
  • correct who personally raises loans
  • correct separation of investor funds and personal obligations (noted as a major legal-risk zone)

---

High-level outlook & where opportunities may be (execution-oriented)

• Expects structural shifts where banks gain more responsibility/control, potentially narrowing niches for developers.
• Longer-term: AI may replace parts of development work (analytics, surveys, modeling), shifting value creation to fewer specialized areas.
• Where Dom would look for development cycles (Russia, broad):
  • Tourism-driven markets with growing visitor flow
  • Named examples: Altai, Karelia, Dagestan, Archys/Gelendzhik coast regions, Kaliningrad (not yet strong), Caucasian Mineral Waters/Rachys, and generally “coastlines” (with Crimea caveated as temporarily weaker).

---

Key leadership/management lessons highlighted

• Don’t “buy growth with cash gaps” (fundraising to patch bleeding can become a pyramid-like obligation stack).
• Build investor-readiness:
  • team understands investment contracts and corporate governance
  • legal/tax structure is prepared before raising
• Diversify capital sources to reduce single-creditor dependency.
• For larger businesses, older operating principles lose effectiveness—wealth management requires coherent strategy across security/accumulation/increase/legacy.

---

Presenters / sources

• Artem Androsov — CEO of an investment fund / investor & manager of Dom Foundation (presenter)
• Unidentified interviewer/host — speaks to Androsov throughout (presenter; no name provided)