The venture capital industry as we know it is broken. At least for women, that is.
In terms of funding to women founders, 2020 was among the worst years on record. On a global level, only 9% of all funds deployed to technology startups went to founding teams that included at least one woman. Solo woman founders and all-women teams raised just 2% of all VC dollars, Crunchbase data showed.
Shockingly, this number is actually less than it was when we first started counting a decade ago, well before many high-profile diversity initiatives launched with the goal of fixing this very problem.
This funding gap isn't just a moral crisis — it's an economic one. The lack of investment into women-founded startups is a missed opportunity worth trillions of dollars. That's because of overwhelming evidence that startups founded by women outperform startups founded by men: They generate more revenue, earn higher profits and exit faster at higher valuations. And they do all this while raising way less money.
What we're doing isn't working. Through research for my next book on women founders and funders, I kept asking myself the same question: When it comes to fixing the funding gap for women founders, what's the one thing we can do that will make everything else easier or unnecessary?
I now believe that our best bet for long-term change is to focus our efforts on increasing the number of women investing partners who can write large seed checks. Here's why.
Recently, one of the top VCs in the world told me how challenging it is to diversify his senior team. He expressed it as an accepted fact and a widespread belief. This is a common trope in Silicon Valley: Everyone wants gender diversity, but it's so hard to find all the senior women!
In the venture capital industry, who you hire at the senior level is who you hang out with. And who you hire at the senior level determines who your fund will back.
Since studies now show that women investors are up to three times more likely to invest in women founders, it is clear that the fastest way to fund more women is to hire more women investing partners with check-writing ability. The effect to venture firms? Returns.
'œWhen U.S. VC firms increased the proportion of female partners, they benefited with 9.7% more profitable exits and a 1.5% spike in overall fund returns annually,' explained Lisa Stone of WestRiver Group.
Data from All Raise and PitchBook reinforce the 'œcorrelation between hiring female decision-makers at the investment level and outperformance at the fund level,' adding that 'œ69.2% of U.S. VCs that scored a top-quartile fund between 2009 and 2018 had women in decision-making roles.'
It shouldn't be surprising that women investors are more likely to invest in women founders. That's because humans have a propensity toward homophily — the tendency for like to attract like and for similarity to breed connection.
Homophily is why a vegan VC is more likely to invest in a vegan food tech, a gamer is more likely to hang out with gaming founders, or a parent is more likely to invest in a parent marketplace. People gravitate toward what they know.
Deena Shakir, who happens to be a woman and a mother, recently led Lux Capital's investment into women's health unicorn Maven. Shakir had multiple high-risk pregnancies with multiple complications, emergency C-sections, NICU stays and breastfeeding challenges.
'œIt is no coincidence that I am joined on Maven's board of directors by four other mothers '¦ and a brand-new father '¦ whose personal journeys have also informed their professional conviction,' Shakir wrote in a Medium post.
I believe that to fix the funding gap for women founders and jump-start the virtuous cycle of venture capital investing into women, we should focus on getting more seed checks into the hands of women founders. That's because seed investing is a leading indicator of whether we are headed in the right direction in terms of closing the funding gap for women, according to Jenny Lefcourt, a partner at Freestyle and co-founder of All Raise, the leading nonprofit focused on diversifying the VC industry.
This doesn't discount the importance of investments made into women founders at later stages. When a women founder lands Series D capital, it boosts this year's numbers into women founders and likely brings that particular founder closer to a liquidity event that will lead her (and her executives) to invest in more women.
That said, the greatest impact on the future ecosystem will come from widening the top of the funnel and giving more women at the seed stage the shot to one day reach a momentous Series D funding like Maven. After all, who we fund now becomes who we fund later.
Finally, the size of the check is also important when thinking about how to have the biggest impact on the ecosystem.
I know first-hand that microchecks are critical to building an inclusive ecosystem. When women invest at the seed level '” in any amount '” they jumpstart a virtuous cycle of women funding women. That's why when I stepped in to lend a hand at my portfolio company when the solo woman founder took a parental leave, one of my key projects was to develop Jefa House, a way for Jefa's own executives to easily invest in other women-founded startups.
That said, large party rounds made up entirely of small angel checks are few and far between. Similar challenges face small checks from emerging fund managers. Although the sheer number of emerging managers has increased 9x in seven years, the reality is that most emerging managers simply don't have much money.
Are women venture capitalists who run their own microfunds more likely to invest in amazing women founders than Tier 1 funds with few or no women investing partners? Yes. Will it take them a long time to compete with those Tier 1 funds in terms of check size? Yes.
This is why it matters so much when leading funds hire or promote women to the partner level. Not only does it give women founders a better shot at funding from high-signal shops, but the moves that top funds make are key signals to others in the ecosystem: In venture capital, women investors don't have to sit at the kids' table.
We all know that great returns in early-stage venture capital come from making big bets on great ideas that others aren't betting on. That is why VC investing is contrarian by definition. Thanks to our increasingly globalized world and clear data showing the importance of diverse teams to make good decisions to get those returns, no one in 2021 truly believes that single white dudes in Palo Alto have a monopoly on billion-dollar ideas.
However, due to the nature of homophily, venture capital remains a highly homogenous industry, and the social and economic interactions and decisions of human beings remain deeply swayed by these principles. No matter how much work we do, birds of a feather really do flock '” and fund '” together.
This all leads to one place: The clearest path to funding different kinds of founders with different kinds of ideas is to put different kinds of investors on the investing side of the table. To get more funding to women founders, we need more women who can write checks. That's why prioritizing the hiring of women investing partners who can write large seed checks is key to fixing the funding crisis for women founders and increasing VC returns worldwide.