#startup #superfunds #investment #entrepreneurship
So, what do you all think about startup founders believing that super funds should be obligated to invest in their ventures? π Personally, I find it quite bold, donβt you? π
Here are some key points to consider from the discussion:
– The CEO of a successful HR software company is advocating for superannuation funds to allocate 1% of their funds to support startups.
– This proposal aims to boost the struggling startup sector, even if it means lower returns for the super funds.
What could be a potential solution to this issue that benefits both parties? π€ Share your thoughts in the comments below! Let’s brainstorm together to find a win-win situation for everyone involved. π‘ #collaboration #innovation
Breaking news: 70billion new startups launched in 2025
If they were decent investments, super funds would already invest in them.
Ah yes⦠this remind me how super is actually my money
Yeah, that’s never going to happen.
Diversified early stage funds can be extremely profitable, there’s a number of Australian funds that only target startups and have track records that are very lucritive, but the minimum investment is typically high 6 figures to low 7 figures, thus out of reach for 99% of the population.
The main issue is the timelines to be able to liquidate are typically 10+ years minimum.
The funds that do well in it are also very active in helping the companies to grow, something I can’t see Superfunds doing very well if they tried.
It’s not a terrible idea, even if it’s a smaller number than 1%.
Iβd hate to think how many commercially unviable business ventures start out self describing themselves as βstart upsβ.. it conjures a romantic view of the world and gives themselves belief they are the next Facebook or Tesla, quite often trying to solve problems that donβt really exist except in their own minds
Ah yesβ¦ because government intervention worked out so great every other time itβs been tried
It definitely wonβt be exploitedβ¦.
When your super disappears because it was forced to invest in a bunch of startups who paysβ¦
Dude’s just annoyed he lost when Hostplus had enough
[https://www.afr.com/technology/2b-start-up-hands-win-to-industry-super-in-hostplus-feud-20240313-p5fc3c](https://www.afr.com/technology/2b-start-up-hands-win-to-industry-super-in-hostplus-feud-20240313-p5fc3c)
Sounds like a recipe for losing part of your super
Nope. Tax them more, make gov invest. Gov gets equity. Society benefits from a unicorn.
Risk return profile of start ups and the lack of Angel Investors with superannuation companies currently makes this a parasitic statement. They want cheap capital.
I’m sorry who wants a handout?
I hate the idea of being forced to do anything, so I’m out on that basis alone. There is a nuanced argument to be had here. The Australian superannuation fund pool is among the largest anywhere in the world. That money has to be deployed somewhere.Β
This isn’t exhaustive but I think returns for most Super fund’s International investment offerings are much better than those targeting the local market, and a large part of that is that there just aren’t that many innovative companies on the ASX. A majority of our best tech companies are either private or listed on the NASDAQ. Over time, this will be problematic for fund managers as they need to deploy capital but increasing amounts will need to go overseas to be able to generate returns. So, the idea of seeding a local industry isn’t such a bad thing as it will enable the Super managers to provided more differentiated products to their clients.
So, in a nutshell, I think more Super investment into the start up sector is a good thing. Equally, Super fund managers aren’t always well placed to make investment decisions in start ups. So, I think more money into VCs is the way to do it. The VC industry has had tremendous growth but I know that local deal flow quality isn’t always great. Each of the Big 3 funds seem to be addressing this differently but I think there is also an element of sameness in the way they look for companies. So, we need more differentiated VCs that have different views than the big funds, who are all good funds in my opinion but more differentiated funds will make for a better sector and hopefully help to raise the standards, plus the returns profile, which in turn will make Australia a more investible country.
lol all we’d have to do is make real estate less attractive an investment and startups would get more funding.
There job, is to make money for me, not anyone else.
Why should 1% of my super go into an industry (generic term) that has a 95%+ failure rate
I think the bigger problem is all the investnent in property, which is non-productive. Not super funds.