Skip to navigationSkip to content
Lorenzo Gritti

Good morning.

The 2020 US election kicks off

Understanding the VC boom

The 2010s completely transformed venture capital. Until fairly recently, venture capital was a niche industry made up of a small number of firms in Boston and Silicon Valley. Today it’s comprised of some 2,000 companies around the globe. In this week’s field guide, Quartz looks at how bigger funds and bigger deals are keeping startups private longer—and fueling inequality. ✦Quartz

The decade that completely transformed venture capital

There's a double-edged sword effect on venture capital money into the startup world. The crazy thing is, from a 2013 Fundable study, less than 1% of successful small businesses took VC or angel money.

The winner: credit lines, at 30%.

A good point to make is that the venture capitalist market was able to boost the net economic benefits of the startup economy. The market was able to contribute to tech and innovation evolution across industries which made it an essential part of 21st century economics.

VC growth, from investments to capital gains from exits, are truly ground zero for anti-diversity arguments. How much more data do we need, and how much more income and fund opportunities should remain segregated before this industry is called into accountability for its sheer resolve to remain homogeneous

VC growth, from investments to capital gains from exits, are truly ground zero for anti-diversity arguments. How much more data do we need, and how much more income and fund opportunities should remain segregated before this industry is called into accountability for its sheer resolve to remain homogeneous? There has been so much talk about the inequality that persists in the non-bank investment field (the leadership of nearly all firms are overwhelmingly white, male, cisgender, heterosexual; the fund managers are the same, and the returns go to their families and often-segregated home communities around the US). Yet, the industry is largely unregulated and without accountability for the costs it pushes onto government, nonprofits, universities, and others who pick up the slack of reallocating diverse labor to other fields that arent so staunchly entrenched in non-dicersity. Less than 3% of all funds invested in the US by VCs to startups go to women and people of color....combined. Harlem Capital, one of the very few black owned VCs, found the number to be 2.7%. Three quarters of VC firms in the US have ZERO women on staff. With such lucrative wages and returns, side by side with the majority of math degrees and STEM degrees going to women, this means capable people are being disregarded and left out. It also, inherently, means the returns to labor and investment are going to men, and white households...which sends ripples throughout the economy.

Money is to be made. Money is being made. By white men. The billions that have been reaped over the last decade mostly went to them, their families, and their dreams. To invest in an entrepreneur is to say that their vision for the future is worth the world living in. The validity of the visions that brilliant, bold people have are being racialized and genderized due to the continual demand for homogeneity. This isnt an indictment, it's a call to accountability, care, and community in a nation filled with brilliant people of color leading catalytic small companies, indigenous leaders with compelling ideas and track records, LGBTQIA+ entrepreneurs who see the market advantages in a community, and non-male founders locked out of a system that says there is little they can do to stop making sure the white guys stay out front like they always have. People of color like myself work hard to combat these data points and realities, yet the inertia against us is an incredible force, and moves at the pace of white male fragility.

How to launch a streaming service

Pandemic fears reach the global economy

The private sector heads for the stars

Governance gains and losses in Africa

Playing politics with the climate

DTC is reshaping fashion and fitness

Do philosophers belong in the C-Suite?

Your company needs an executive of ethics. Staying neutral on political and social issues isn’t really an option these days. A CMP (chief moral philosopher), alongside the CEO and COO, can help your business navigate tricky dilemmas, and help satisfy shareholders too.Quartz

Why your next corporate hire should be a moral philosopher

‪In times of competing interpretations of truth, companies don't need a philosopher but a #CEO who dares to take a position, not to talk out of 'love for wisdom’ (= philosophy), but to walk & act on urgent issues beyond shareholders' return.‬

Sounds kind of silly, but considering how morally bankrupt the average corporation is today, maybe something like this really is necessary...

While I wholeheartedly think the human component of business decisions have long been missing in traditional capitalistic narratives, the idea of a CMP in a society filled with flawed moral character could very easily introduce a more intrinsically flawed injection of politics into corporate narratives

While I wholeheartedly think the human component of business decisions have long been missing in traditional capitalistic narratives, the idea of a CMP in a society filled with flawed moral character could very easily introduce a more intrinsically flawed injection of politics into corporate narratives.

How? In the example of climate change — there’s a clear divide among American political parties on those that agree climate change exists and those that don’t. So what political requirements and/or restrictions would be required of a CMP, and what happens when the CMP’s politics get in the way of their own morality? And is it based on their morality, or the company’s morality, since corporate entities are considered people under the rule of the law? Will they need to be picked like Supreme Court Justices?

Perhaps instead (or in addition, depending on your preference), we should take a look at the existential implications of why we need a CMP in the first place.

The proposed work of such a position is to have someone looking at what the company does and projecting whether there will be negative outcomes for for various groups. If you have someone doing that, you’re a lot less likely to be blindsided by public perception. You may not change your actions, but

The proposed work of such a position is to have someone looking at what the company does and projecting whether there will be negative outcomes for for various groups. If you have someone doing that, you’re a lot less likely to be blindsided by public perception. You may not change your actions, but you will have answers when questions are asked. Really a kind of risk management.

I think Phoebe's comment captures the risk analysis that companies should do but often ignore. Unfortunately even the most powerful executives are subject to shareholder expectations. If ignored shareholders will sell off underperforming equity positions.

We're obsessed with open-office plans

See you around 👀