Maybe Just Maybe... We Need to Think Differently

A few weeks ago, I wrote about where I believe the issues we see in investing in women stem from. I argued that the system itself isn’t sure what to do. It wanst trained for it. 

Y’all hated it. Why? You don’t like to be called out for biases you potentially don't know you have. That’s the main one, but also because you don’t just want to hear about the problem—you want to hear what we should do about it. 

And that’s Fair. 

If you missed it or want to get vexed, triggered all over again please have a look here: The Path Dependence Feedback Loop & Investing in Women

Anyway, here is the follow-up to that, which honestly, is less solutions and more highlighting progress we have made and a series of maybes, questions I have no answers to.

Because here’s the thing: we’re making progress. Real, tangible progress. But maybe-just maybe-we need to think differently about how we’re approaching this. 

So here is the good stuff.

One of the most exciting developments to me in recent years has been the creation of the 2x Criteria; A standardisation of what it means to invest in women. 

Why is this important? Because, let’s be real, people will do anything to game the system. Oh, your co-founder is a woman? Cool. But she only owns 1.3% of the business? Come on, y’all. 

The 2x team has done an incredible job in less than a decade of getting us all on the same page about what it means to invest in women and challenging us to meet those targets. (Side note: their team page is aspirational. I love it.) 

Standardization is crucial. It helps us beat biases, promotes accountability and transparency, and allows us to collect more actionable and accurate data. This is and continues to be a vital part of the change we want to see. 

We’re also seeing a lot of LP deliberateness towards investing in and supporting female GPs. 

Take Moremi Capital, for example. They’ve created a working capital facility for female-led funds—an uncompromising support tool that enables female GPs to raise funds and invest in women. Through debt, working capital facilities, and even an accelerator, they’re making it happen. 

And they’re not alone. This tells us something important: if we want more women to receive funding, we need more female GPs to have access to capital. The waterfall effect will follow. 

We’re seeing a lot of capital managed by women. Here are just a few of the female-led funds that continue to impress me: 

Just to name a few, these funds are making waves, and they’re proof that change is happening.

We’re also seeing the rise of amazing programs that are building gender-conscious ecosystems. 

Organizations like Value for Women (in collaboration with IFC and other LPs) are creating programs that span everything from fund positioning to portfolio management for female-led entrepreneurs. ← I spelled that write, the first try by the way. Miracles still do happen.

Networks like WWBA are carving out spaces for women to have their stories told, and to hear from each other. Creating spaces where the real conversations can be had, but not just that, where we can create solutions. I think the ladies are WWBA are cooking something yummy in the back office, to answer the access to capital question.

This is about more than just funding, it’s about creating an ecosystem where women can thrive, start to create new paths to depend on.

Other things I think would move the needle 

Let’s talk policy. 

This has been done, in different formats, to address gender inequality in governments in some African markets and to address race inequalities as well. I think that policy would help to push for deep-rooted change. 

When there’s a policy threshold, people are encouraged to ensure that entrepreneurship is an option for girls in school, continues through university, and is supported after that. 

I believe that the perceived pipeline issue is a symptom of a deeper challenge.  And while I don’t think it’s a subject worth pursuing, it’s worth addressing. Policies like these can lead to increased ownership, more women in management, and more women in STEM, more women in entrepreneurship and, therefore more in what? Your Pipeline 🙂

Now, here’s where I want to start some shit.

Africa currently sits at less than 0.5% of global VC capital deployed. This is a very small if not insignificant amount, in the grand scheme of things. We have, however, been able to achieve amazing things with $2.5 per capita compared to $715, $133, $35  in the US, Europe and Asia, respectively.

Maybe this speaks to a capital efficiency we have? I don’t know, but Goddamn, we really did that. Anyway, the point is maybe the answer is not venture capital. Maybe.

Let’s look at the numbers since 2019: 

_{All the data I assessed came from the Big Deal Database}

Healthcare is the sector with the highest proportional presence of female CEOs. Education & Jobs also shows a strong presence of female CEOs, with gender-diverse founding teams. 

But here’s the kicker: the top 5 most popular sectors for VC in Africa since 2019 are: 

Do you see how there is barely any overlap? Do you also see that when there is, the proportions are still extremely skewed? The value raised by women in fintech aligns with the general trends of VC in Africa, but there isn’t a larger proportion of women raising in that industry. So, there’s a trend, but I’m still trying to figure out the correlation or causation. Maybe you see something I don’t. 

Maybe I am just forcing.

So, what does this tell us? Women are building in sectors that VC investors don’t necessarily find “sexy”? Maybe. 

Should we create investment vehicles focused on solutions in sectors where women are building, or simply to increase the amount of capital directly invested into these sectors? Maybe.

 Is it that the way VC is designed today will not address a big chunk of funding needs across critical sectors, where women are largely building? Maybe 

The point of this article is simple: maybe we need to think differently. 

Maybe we need more healthcare and education-focused funds, maybe we need more not necessarily VC-style vehicles. Maybe we need to focus on SME funds, debt vehicles, or even models where dividends are collected annually. 

Let’s keep pushing, keep questioning, and keep thinking differently. 

Because maybe-just maybe-That is where the real change begins. 

MAYBE.