Too female to fund? The gendered gap in business investment
When entrepreneurs Debbie Wosskow OBE and Anna Jones set out to raise capital for their latest venture, wellness company Better Menopause, they encountered a familiar obstacle.
Despite a formidable track record – Wosskow founded the home-swapping platform Love Home Swap, Jones is the former UK CEO of Hearst Magazines – one well-known male investor said he loved them but he thought the idea was 'a little niche'.
This, says Wosskow, is what happens when women founders pitch female-focused businesses to male investors. Ventures addressing the needs of half the population are too often dismissed as marginal. Women, she argues, are still expected to prove legitimacy twice over – once for the idea, and again for daring to lead it.
New research from the wealth management firm Charles Stanley bears this out. Just 24.8 per cent of female founders say it's easier to secure funding as a woman. More than half – 55 per cent – report facing heightened scrutiny because of their gender, while 63 per cent say they have to work harder than men to be recognised as leaders.
There is, in other words, significant ground to gain. The UK is home to 7,696 high-growth companies with at least one female founder, accounting for 13.7 per cent of the country's high-growth business population. Of these, 4,224 are majority female-founded.
According to the Invest in Women Taskforce – co-chaired by Wosskow – if women were supported to scale their businesses at the same rate as men, it could add as much as £250 billion to the UK economy.
Alongside plans to create a dedicated investment fund for female founders, Wosskow and the taskforce are focused on encouraging more women to become investors themselves. As she points out, women are twice as likely to invest in other women as men are. 'We need to create systemic change,' she says.
But it isn't only about capital. 'Mentoring is super important,' says Mia Kahrimanovic, chartered financial planner at Charles Stanley.
'I love that quote – 'You can't be what you can't see.' Women need access to mentors and advisers who can help them build and scale. Taking an idea and making it work becomes easier when you know someone else has already walked the path.'
A sense of community among women entrepreneurs is key here. Research by Charles Stanley found that 70.8 per cent of female founders expressed a desire to support other women – something that has been evident throughout Wosskow's career.
After exiting her first business, Love Home Swap, in 2017, she co-founded AllBright the following year with Jones. The global community connects ambitious women through female-only members' clubs in London and Hollywood, as well as a thriving online network. It's a space for sharing expertise, offering support and building lasting professional relationships.
'Women's networks are just not as strong as men's – for all sorts of reasons – and we wanted to create a global sisterhood of women who had each other's backs,' says Wosskow.
Whether formal or informal, having a trusted network to turn to is invaluable for female founders. 'Most of the entrepreneurs I work with say the journey is lonely,' says Kahrimanovic. 'Advisers are an ideal extension of a start-up team, especially when navigating funding, legal or financial issues.'
Following the closure of Allbright, Wosskow went on to co-found WJV – an investment firm focused on backing diverse founders – once again teaming up with Jones. 'I've backed only female entrepreneurs in the past six years of investing,' she says. 'As women, when we have money, we tend to show up for each other.'
Her goal now is to drive greater economic empowerment among women and encourage them to become investors themselves. She wants women to build wealth, speak openly about it, and use their capital to support the next generation of female founders.
'There is a great wealth transfer coming,' says Wosskow. 'Partly through divorce, partly through inheritance – and I want to equip those women with the understanding that angel investment is a powerful tool.'
For some, as she points out, wealth may come from personal transitions, such as divorces. But for founders, it's business exits that unlock the capital needed to reinvest in others.
According to Charles Stanley's latest research, 2024 saw 82 exits by female-founded high-growth companies – a promising signal for the future of women backing women.
The average age of the female founders behind those exits was 51. As a multi-exit entrepreneur herself, Wosskow has advice for those considering it.
'I have always started a business with a clear plan for how I'm going to sell it,' she says. 'You might mess everything up the first time, but in my experience, you just get better at it. That's why I want women to do it again and again.'
For many women founders, however, an exit can feel like a distant prospect as they work through the realities of building a business.
For those still in the trenches, Wosskow offers one piece of advice: 'When things go wrong – which they will – give yourself 24 hours to mourn it, then move on. Take a day to lie on the couch, moan and wail, but that's it. Get up and keep going.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
39 minutes ago
- Times
Ignorant government plans to tax bookies more could destroy racing
Tax the bookmakers more. It's a policy sure to garner public support, isn't it? The problem is not the idea of taxing the betting industry at a higher level, it is the way that the government is proposing to do it. It is not far-fetched to say that the changes, if introduced in the autumn statement, could be the death knell for horse racing in Britain. The government needs cash and the bookmakers are a soft target. The idea is to harmonise tax on bookmakers' profits on all their income streams. At the moment there is a division between tax paid on online casino profits (21 per cent goes to the government) and sports/racing betting (paid at 15 per cent). The suggestion is to charge 21 per cent across the board. There are exceptions, such as George Freeman (Conservative, Mid Norfolk) and Sally Jameson (Labour, Doncaster Central), but many MPs do not appear to understand the differences between betting on sports, which involves an element of skill, compared with casino betting, where bookmakers cannot lose. They also appear to be oblivious of the damage it will do to the racing industry, which provides jobs for 85,000 people. A further 10 per cent of bookmakers' profits from bets placed on horse racing are paid back to the sport. This levy came into force when betting shops were legalised in 1961 as a means to help fund the sport. It was introduced to combat the fact that fewer people would go racing once off-course betting was permitted, while also recognising the symbiotic relationship of the racing and betting industries. As a result, though, betting on racing is less profitable for bookmakers, making them keen to push punters towards higher-margin products, with online casinos being top of their list. The reason that racing will be badly hit by the proposed tax changes is that it will make bookmakers even less keen to promote betting on the sport, which provides the lifeblood of the industry. Modelling commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority suggested that increasing tax on betting on racing to 21 per cent, to level it up with betting on online casinos, would cost the sport £66million a year in lost income from levy, media rights and sponsorship. That would be ruinous for a sport that is already struggling. A hike in tax on online casino betting would make more sense and could generate the same level of revenue for the government. There is zero skill in betting on online casinos — bookmakers take a fixed margin, set by themselves, on a product on which they literally cannot lose in the long run. A higher level of tax on online casinos would have the added bonus of discouraging bookmakers from promoting a product that causes the majority of problem gambling. The Gambling Commission has already inflicted damage to racing's finances. In 2023 it produced a white paper suggesting that bookmakers should 'check for financial vulnerability' if a gambler lost either £125 in a month or £500 in a year. Bookmakers saw the proposals and, keen to avoid being hit with large fines, started making intrusive checks on their customers' financial situations to the extent that many punters now use offshore gambling companies that provide no income for racing or the government purse. The latter point is not hearsay — betting on racing has dropped 16 per cent in three years and polling carried out by YouGov for the Betting and Gaming Council recently found that 14 per cent of punters admitted to gambling on a black-market site. The public, many of whom are only cognisant of the biggest events, will perhaps believe that racing is a wealthy sport that can well afford the hit. That is a misconception. Flat racing in Britain has been kept competitive at an international level by the largesse of wealthy foreign owners, primarily from the Middle East. Even so, it is struggling at the top end, with prize money that compares badly with other leading racing nations. Much of the best bloodstock that is bred in Britain has been heading overseas for some time and it is now approaching a tipping point where British breeders will not be able to compete with similar operations abroad. Prize money at the bottom level is so poor that a horse can win eight races in a year and still not cover its costs. The vast majority of trainers and jockeys are struggling to make a living. The effects of overtaxing racing can be seen from recent events in India. In 2017 the government introduced a goods and services tax on money bet on racing at a rate of 28 per cent. Punters paid the price and as their returns dwindled many turned to illegal bookmakers who paid no tax. Government revenues from racing more than halved in five years. British racing has been revered throughout the world for decades. Its history has maintained its place in the minds of leading owners but the point is fast approaching where that is no longer the case. If the sport is to continue to provide work for so many, and continue to attract inward investment to the UK, the government needs to rethink its proposed tax changes.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Plans to convert empty units into migrant housing in deprived Hampshire town are axed after furious local protests
Plans to convert empty units into migrant housing within a deprived town have been axed after thousands of locals protested against the proposals. The Home Office planned to relocate 35 asylum seekers to a new development in Waterlooville, Hampshire, in a bid to lower the numbers in hotels and 'disperse' migrants across UK towns and cities. But nearby residents argued the new arrivals could bring 'chaos' to their already 'dead' community hub following unrest at other migrant sites in recent weeks. Havant Borough Council has now said the Home Office confirmed the proposals will not go ahead. Suella Braverman, MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, previously dubbed the plans 'wholly inappropriate' and argued they would send the area's regeneration scheme 'backwards'. The Home Office previously said the blocks would be 'best suited for the use of couples, or single parents with young children. There is one single flat which would most likely be utilised for a single adult female'. On July 30, around two thousand people packed into Waterlooville precinct to protest against the plans. The area used to be a 'thriving' high street but lost many big name stores including Waitrose, Wilko, Game and Peacocks in recent years - with much of the footfall being 'taken' by a nearby retail park. Now, the 'barren' high street still houses a Wetherspoons but little else, and some residents have feared the lack of life in the town centre would lead to migrant men loitering aimlessly. The development was a newly converted block of 19 flats called Waterloo House. It is owned by Mountley Group whose Director, Hersch Schneck, also owns a migrant hotel in nearby Cosham. At the top of the market, the flats could fetch £250,000 each but falling house prices mean taking them off the market and entering into a deal with Clearsprings, a company which procures accommodation for asylum seekers on behalf of the Home Office, could have been a far more profitable move for Mountley Group. That's because the government could offer top of the market fees in order to get migrants into housing. As well as private rentals, the Home Office has been seeking medium-sized sites such as former student accommodation and old tower blocks to house migrants. The flats are located above a bric a brac store called The Junk Emporium which was once a Peacocks clothing store and before that, a Tesco. Havant Borough Council said in a statement: 'The Home Office considered the consultation response from HBC alongside other evidence and has decided not to purchase the property as the accommodation has been deemed unsuitable for asylum dispersal accommodation.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
End of student digs! Third of those going to university now live at home to save money
Almost a third of university students now live at home while studying as many are unable to afford rent, new data reveals. Figures from admissions body Ucas show 30 per cent of 18-year-olds who applied for the 2024/25 academic year said they would be living at home rather than in student accommodation. This compares to just 14 per cent in 2007, and 21 per cent in 2015. The change is likely down to the soaring cost of living and an expansion of students from less wealthy families going to university. Rent in some university towns can reach as much as £1,000 a month, and many families are unable to help out financially. A typical student leaves university with debts of £53,000, including tuition and maintenance loans. Jo Saxton, chief executive of Ucas, said the high cost of studying away from home could be stopping youngsters pursuing the best course for them. She told the Sunday Times: 'If students choose to stay at home during their studies because it's the best course or institution for them, or because of caring or family responsibilities, of course that's the right thing, but more needs to be done to ensure the cost of living doesn't become a limit on young people's ambition.' Separate data showed large variation between universities. Glasgow Caledonian University has the highest rate of home-dwelling students in the UK, accounting for 45 per cent of its intake, according to Ucas. By comparison, 1 per cent live at home while studying at Oxford and Cambridge, which famously provide three meals a day and room cleaning in the colleges. Ben Jordan, director of strategy at Ucas, said: 'If you drive along any motorway in September, you will see car after car full of duvets, pots and pans, and clothes as students head off to university for the first time. 'However, this stereotypical view of a literal journey into higher education isn't the case for everyone and far more students now live at home during their studies than you may think.' In 1984-85, only about 8 per cent of young first-degree entrants were living at home, according to a report released in 2020 by the now-defunct Higher Education Funding Council for England. The proportion of stay-at-home students began rising in the 1990s, which coincided with the introduction of tuition fees in 1998. Fees now stand at £9,250 a year, due to increase to £9,535 next month. A report from the Higher Education Policy Institute last year found the maximum maintenance student loan of £13,348, which is only paid to those from low-income families, is now less than the average annual student rent in London of £13,595. In contrast to old-fashioned student 'digs' with shared showers and toilets, student accommodation blocks are now run by private companies and are often aimed at a high-end market. For those on a budget, living with parents who can help out with meals and washing is an attractive alternative.
