More sugar?
-
-
Replying to @birsic
I'm not aware of any body of data that contradicts the claim that returns will generally be higher (as a function of initial investment) for those who win that were most undervalued at the point of investment
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason
Most undervalued founders today: - women - URMs VC data is what it is So, VC backers are either dumb, or they are pursuing maximal returns I would like to change their calculus on the latter
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @birsic @webdevMason
I’m quite away this was not your original point. I’m a solid reader. I took it another direction. Hoping that’s agreeable.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @birsic
I'm not sure whether female founders are broady undervalued, but you can't really go wrong saying so! I just think someone should go ahead and clean house if they really believe it. The social capital for saying so is free.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
I find this compelling data on that front http://fortune.com/2019/01/28/funding-female-founders-2018/ … And I could not agree more! To my point, that is the only things LPs care about, the only way it will change.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @birsic
Has anyone looked at market cap diffs for female- vs. male-founded companies, vs. investment? If there's no substantial difference, someone should go get rich. If there is, that's more a more explanatory property
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason
First Round probably did the most quoted study, with 60+ percent higher returns from female founders, but they excluded Uber (because it was an outlier, in a market defined by outliers) so their results are viewed with skepticism by those in the know (re Uber exclusion)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @birsic @webdevMason
That chart and fortune article make a pretty convincing case for the underfunding of female founders. This does mean that the marketplace has provided an opportunity to invest in female founders and achieve significant profits.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesonHalpern @birsic
They kinda... don't! Unless you assume that female founders are, as a group, statistically identical to male founders in e.g. the industries they're tackling (ex: tech vs. consumer goods). This is a *really* complicated question that's very difficult to discuss critically
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Might be the case that you can figure out which kinds of deals are still *really* profitable but not quite tasty enough for most SV VCs, then capture a more diverse portfolio! But this doesn't point to some systemic failure of VCs so much as a need for diverse financial products
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @birsic
I'm almost certain that is the case. Most of the VCs now copy each other, the way that IBs copied each other in the late 1990s IPO markets. Personally I reject quota based affirmative action, intersectionality identity politics, and the patriarchy conspiracy theory anyway.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.