3 ms·
I don't think the article is much of a surprise. I'm more surprised that class and social background weren't also highlighted as an indicator. The fact is, pe
by lwhi 16y ago
I don't think the article is much of a surprise. I'm more surprised that class and social background weren't also highlighted as an indicator.
The fact is, people are prejudiced. Some venture capitalists might have money, but also possess very little investment / business acumen - and so, feel they have to rely on a prejudiced / cookie-cutter 'template' of what makes a successful CEO.
If an investor is not willing to examine a person and situation objectively (and look past superficial details), they're probably not very good at the VC game. In which case most of us would be better off without them anyway.
- jacquesm 16y agoIt's a problem that solves itself. Assuming the articles premise is true, I'd see it as an opportunity, it means that there are large numbers of chances that the 'old boy network' of VCs would never give a chance because of their background, social status, sex, skin colour or some other obvious externally noticeable criterion. The way to deal with that is to set up a fund and prove them all wrong by picking out those gems.
- lwhi 16y agoYep, totally. While the VCs who hold these views see deviation - from their (prejudiced) template - as a risk - that narrow-mindedness provides an advantage to any investors who are able to assess applicants objectively.
- Semiapies 16y agoThese problems solve themselves in the long term, not instantly and automatically. Keep in mind the old joke about the economist who wouldn't pick up a $10 on the sidewalk because, "If a $10 were sitting on the sidewalk, someone would have already picked it up!"