A female Chief Impact Officer commented on one of my previous articles called Fake Tits And Money, saying it was insulting.
Perhaps so, when you consider the many marriages failing based on the artificial inflation of body parts more important than impact investing with equally inflated valuations not delivering socio-economic value to improve our world.
I had no intention of creating a catchy title other than to correlate the misjudgment of values in marriages, especially but not only in California, with what happens between investors and entrepreneurs. But, as I highlight in the article, it turned out the often misplaced evolutionary values in a marriage are similar to the misplaced appraisal of impact.
Impact investing dies in the hands of people who cannot be questioned about what evolutionary impact entails.
This is the comment that started it all:
Investment in enterprise isn’t such a complicated process that it requires extensive analogies and metaphors, let alone insulting ones like these.
Here is my response:
You being insulted does not constitute an argument, but if it was here is my answer.
Is that why the returns are dwindling, and so many founding CEOs of large private equity firms are jumping ship while issuing stern warnings about the future returns of those firms? And why pension funds cannot produce returns over 7% while the greenfield of innovation by gaping addressable market is over 90%?
On the second point, what is insulting to women is a society that teaches women self-worth comes from implanting silicone. I teach my daughter different values of self-worth.
What is really insulting, is a financial system eleven times the size of production leaving 25% of U.S. children food-deprived. What is insulting is, we create systems that are not systems at all, that stifle the mobility and lock-in the extreme poverty of 15.8% in the U.S.
What is insulting is, 42% of institutional investors with no knowledge of the regenerative principles of evolution betting massive amounts of capital on sustainability while sustainability does not exist anywhere in the universe.
It is insulting how we wreck the expanding fractal of human ingenuity with monetary schemes that shorten the runway of human evolution.
Humanity as the most intelligent species is currently on a trajectory to live the shortest of all major species. It is because of the idiocracy we apply to ourselves. That is truly insulting.
So, yeah, somebody has got to get real and kick the political correctness to the curb that under the veil of solipsism creates so many marriages, like the one described in the blog, responsible for an anthropogenic cascade.
I suggest you get real too when you talk about impact investing. It is the only way by which we can improve ourselves.
For the simple reason, financiers have no knowledge about the regenerative evolutionary principles that ignite impact.
It is not my responsibility to do so, but it is my compassion for those investors who wish to improve their proximal development in adapting more closely to nature’s predictable alpha. Any thesis of finance not correlated to nature’s principles will be incompatible to the assets, human beings, to which they are applied.
As an institutional investor, I suggest you sign up for our asset-manager masterclass, to stave off another anthropogenic cascade from the make-believe of financial theories incompatible with the assets to which they are applied.
We must fundamentally improve the theory of financial arbitrage to determine what humanity can discover, for the make-believe of impact investing not to contribute to an anthropogenic cascade, and instead, expand the fractal of human ingenuity to improve human adaptability to nature.