4 ms·

The problem (and opportunity for US investors) is Canada has almost no VC, and the few they have are extremely risk averse. One one side they held back economi

The problem (and opportunity for US investors) is Canada has almost no VC, and the few they have are extremely risk averse. One one side they held back economic and social growth of ~1/3rd of the population for more than a century through systemic racism and discrimination. On the other side, the government has created little incentives for capital owners to take more risks thanks to policies that artificially propped up real estate (enormous immigration quotas, lax laws on foreign money entering the country, no market correction post 2007 crash). Why invest in hard to understand and uncertain tech when you can simply build luxury houses and sell them to wealthy foreigners?

TMWNN 4y ago
> The problem (and opportunity for US investors) is Canada has almost no VC, and the few they have are extremely risk averse. Based on all the stories we've heard over the past week from VCs and entrepreneurs about how SVB was the only bank willing to open accounts and extend credit to startups, I think many people underestimated that bank's importance in the Bay area economy. (I've also been startled by just how important SVB's UK, Canada, and even China branches seem to have been for their startups.) While SVB wasn't present in most other areas of the US, there is an extensive network of regional banks (of which SVB was one), so the odds that one is going to offer a no-revenue tech startup in Nashville or Phoenix or Worcester the financial help it needs to get started aren't bad. Now compare that to Canada, which has the Big Five national banks, tiny credit unions, and almost nothing else; apparently this makes borrowing money much, much more expensive than in the US. I hear that Australia is the same way.