Image: Supplied
Sami Khoreibi is a seasoned entrepreneur and investor whose track record spans renewable energy, sustainable technology and consumer innovation. He began his career co‑founding Candax Energy, which went public on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2005 when he was 25 years old.
Khoreibi went on to build Enviromena Power Systems into one of the largest solar developers in the Middle East and North Africa before its sale in 2017. He is the co‑founder of Wisewell, a company rethinking how water is consumed and delivered through technology.
In this conversation, Khoreibi reflects candidly on early success and the unrealistic expectations it can create, the realities of building through downturns, and why resilience often matters more than speed or hype.
Drawing on his experience as both founder and investor, he unpacks the fine line between persistence and stubbornness, how to spot founders with real staying power, and why, even in an age shaped by AI and rapid disruption, human judgment, timing, and trust still matter most.
You took your first company public at 25, which is a huge milestone by any measure. Looking back, do you think that early success set unrealistic expectations for what entrepreneurship should look like?
I think that question has two answers. The first answer is yes; it absolutely set some unrealistic expectations in the context of how quickly and smoothly the process from idea to IPO or liquidity event could look. We achieved that milestone through a combination of hard work, the right team, and perfect market timing; capital inflows, rising energy valuations in Canadian markets, and Middle East opportunities all came together.
But that level of smooth success isn’t something that happens repeatedly. You don’t get hit by lightning twice. However, experiencing that success so young taught me that outcomes like IPOs or acquisitions are real, tangible goals if you find the right opportunity, combine patience and impatience, and believe in what you’re doing.
Building a solar company through economic downturns must have tested both your business model and your personal endurance. What did those years teach you about resilience and leading through uncertainty?
Startups often talk about sprints, but a company is a marathon. You need resilience to survive external shocks you can’t plan for. When we started in 2007, we didn’t foresee the 2008 financial crisis or the Arab Spring in 2011. No model can predict that.
Your organisation must avoid panic and instead use these moments as potential moats. Downturns should not be allowed to accumulate and be realised only in times of doom. We call it ‘cockroach mode’; if you survive the massive hits, you’ll be the first to emerge afterwards. We call it ‘cockroach mode’; if you survive the massive hits, you’ll be the first to emerge afterwards.
That means having the courage to take calculated risks during downturns, being careful with timing and resources, scaling down when needed, entering survival mode, and staying humble during booms. People have short memories, but holding on to lessons from cycles is key. It’s equally important to stay lean during upswings to avoid painful downsizing later.
You’ve said persistence often matters more than timing or even the initial idea. Can you unpack that? What does persistence actually look like in practice when everything seems to be going wrong?
There’s a saying: ‘persistence beats resistance.’ As a founder, you’re constantly knocking on doors that aren’t opening because, at the start, you’re small and irrelevant. Persistence matters, but only if you’re in the right market.
You need to quickly gauge product–market fit. Do you have customers beyond friends and family, real traction, repeat business, and growth metrics? If those are there, you persist.
With Wisewell, for example, we believe there’s a coming shift away from single-use plastic for health, sustainability, and cost. We’re persisting in leading that transition despite resistance and distractions. Persistence means getting up every day, learning from feedback, and staying committed to your vision, even when faced with rejections or alternate paths.
That said, persistence for a fundamentally flawed idea is just stubbornness. If the market trend is against you, no amount of persistence will save you. You need early feedback to know whether the idea has scalable potential.
Many founders see setbacks as signals to pivot or quit. How do you personally differentiate between persistence and stubbornness — between pushing through and knowing when it’s time to change direction?
Stubbornness is not listening. Hearing feedback but not truly absorbing it. If everyone tells you your pricing is too high or nobody wants your product, and you ignore it, that’s stubbornness. Iteration, on the other hand, is the most valuable skill a founder can have. It means making adjustments based on feedback, not doing a full pivot.
Pivoting can be effective, but more often it is a distraction that is sometimes driven by advisors or investors outside the domain. Unfortunately, some founders could take this feedback too literally. I always remind portfolio companies that they are the true experts in their subject matter. Hence, they should trust their insight, stay grounded in their vision, and filter external advice through the lens of their own expertise.
Pivoting should only happen after serious homework and data. It’s not an A/B test. It’s a whole new test. So, I’d always lean toward iteration before making big pivots or quitting.
As an investor and advisor now, how do you assess persistence in other founders? What signs tell you someone has the stamina to weather the long haul, not just chase the next funding round?
Two key traits stand out. First, obsession and not just with their product, but with the entire market and global trends. When founders can explain their idea deeply, compare global examples, analyse why others worked or failed, and explain why theirs is different, I get excited
Second, consistent progress between meetings. We never invest after one meeting. We see if founders follow through. Did they make progress with customers or deals they mentioned? Too often, I hear ‘we emailed them, but no response’. That’s not persistence.
Great founders find nuanced, non-annoying ways to get to the top of the priority list for investors or customers. That kind of follow-up can be tracked through their communication and reporting over time.
Given today’s climate of rapid technological disruption, shifting markets, and AI-driven change, why do you think persistence remains such a defining trait for leadership and success?
Technology hasn’t changed human behaviour yet. Maybe one day AIs will invest in AIs, but for now, the human element, Charm, differentiation, and relationships remain central. We can automate comparisons, tick boxes, and use tools, but early-stage investment still relies on human engagement and dynamics.
At later stages, when there’s enough data, AI might outperform humans on investment decisions. But at the start, the qualitative factors dominate. Persistence matters because success still hinges on human trust and connection.
When it comes to integrating AI into a business, its effectiveness ultimately depends on the quality and size of the data set. Implementing tools like AI chatbots too early, when data is limited, can actually harm the customer experience. However, once a business has accumulated a large volume of well-tagged interactions, AI becomes a powerful enabler to enhance service quality, reduce costs, and boost operational efficiency.
It’s like a chef’s knife; the tool itself isn’t valuable until someone knows how to use it. You need the right timing, proper data, and a clear understanding of what the tool should achieve. It’s about balancing efficiency with the human touch.
