1/Getting inst. LP capital for an emerging VC firm is often a really hard hurdle. Those that do usually raise more $, have more stability in their LP base across funds (thus higher % more time w/founders vs. always needed to backfill LPs).
But there is a major issue/
But there is a major issue/
2/ Inst. LPs typically back first time funds whose managers came from institutional shops. Understandably, but what's the problem?
3/ We talk about diversity of thought and diversity in general (POC, gender, etc.) but many inst. firms have just started actively hiring those with diff backgrounds.
4/The problem is there are only so many @chudson @aileenlee who have track records, meaning that many that POC and female VCs are left out in the cold with inst. investors for 3-6 years (and in this frigid environment, it's even harder).
5/If we truly believe venture requires diversity of thought to achieve great returns, than why aren't enough inst. investors taking the appropriate flyers on those entering the space that don't look/feel like the old archetype?
6/I get frustrated because I see some many talented female and POC investors that can't get inst. capital,but really have a unique lens. This is not to take away from others, but if we are really about returns and building(like @pmarca wrote about), we need inst. cap behind this
7/For those inst. investors that are willing to back first time managers that are diverse, I want to hear from you. DM me so we can help bridge this problem. My father was a 1st gen indian immigrant that started his own co in an industry that had no diversity.
8/Someone took a flyer and funded him, and was handsomely rewarded because brought a different view, absent of normal biases that existed in the business.
This is important, and critical to our industry!
This is important, and critical to our industry!
