Latest news with #wealthinequality
Forbes
20-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
When Millionaires Say They're Leaving—They Almost Never Do
Phil White, a British millionaire poses with a placard reading: "Tax the rich" next to the Congress ... More centre during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 18, 2023. - Tax me and tax people like me urges in an interview with AFP Phil White, a British millionaire present at the Davos forum, believing that wealth inequalities fragment the world. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images) Every time a government proposes ticking up taxes on the wealthy, however modestly, the same rote routine begins: High-net-worth individuals, their accountants in tow, emerge to provide quotes informing the public that, sadly, they will now be forced to flee to some jurisdiction that has no designs on taxing their income. The threat is immediate and existential in scale—they're being driven away like a protected species poached to near extinction. The latest revival of this performance comes courtesy of the United Kingdom, where the government closed a centuries-old tax loophole that let wealthy foreigners reside in the U.K. but insist their income did not. The global rich are now in full performative retreat from London—selling their properties and booking one-way flights to elsewhere. Estate agents lament, tabloids predict doom for the tax base, and everyone seems certain that London's days as a center of commerce are numbered. Across the Atlantic, the same chorus plays in a slightly different accent. In New York, when Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani proposed a millionaire's tax, the upper crust began auditioning for the same role as put-upon wealth creator in search of a steamship to Florida. But here's the thing: they almost never really leave. If they do, it's in such small numbers that the fiscal impact is negligible at worst and, often, positive. We've seen this performance before. U.K Closes a Loophole, Wealthy Pack Their Bags (or Say They Will) In the U.K. the 'non-dom' regime was a tax perk long enjoyed by the ultra-wealthy. It permitted wealthy foreigners to live in Britain without paying tax on overseas income. In effect, it allowed the global elite to buy an address in London and enjoy the related public goods without contributing meaningfully to His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). All the perks of residency, none of the fiscal responsibility. This spring, the U.K. government finally did the unthinkable and closed the non-dom loophole. The ascendant tax regime was projected to bring in £12.7 billion by 2030. To be fair, some of the beneficiaries of the old regime did seem to start heading for the exits. Several high-profile billionaires moved abroad and real estate sales in the poshest neighborhoods did fall. Anecdotes snap together like magnets and, from there, the narrative accelerates. There is a certain common-sense element to the idea that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to leave, so ad-hoc stories are all that is necessary to move many from assumption to certainty—the wealthy are on the move. The same argument was made the last time the U.K. trimmed non-dom benefits, in 2017. Back then, only 2% of the affected group actually left the country. The rest stuck around and paid 50% more in tax. The rich are better at making threats than following them and the media credulously reports on the bluster. Meanwhile, in New York New York faces down its own elite melodrama. Assemblymember and Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist with a preference for policy over donor appeasement, has proposed a state-level millionaire's tax. The reaction was instant. Business leaders issued grave warnings and his opponent conjured up images of a mass exodus to Florida. It seems the mere suggestion that the ultra-rich should pay a few percentage points more toward public transit or housing sends the elites into a private jet fuel-up pantomime. There is precedent in the U.S. to mirror that in the U.K.—when California raised taxes on high earners in 2010, despite opponents warning of an economic death spiral, California's share of the nation's million-dollar earners went up. Today, nearly one in five U.S. millionaires live in the Golden State. The myth of the millionaire on the move is politically useful but empirically bankrupt. Study after study, in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, tells the same story: millionaires are even less likely to move than the general population. In the U.S. just 2.4% of millionaires move across state lines in a given year—below the national average of 2.9%. And yet, the myth persists—why? Why the Chased-Away Millionaire Myth Persists If the data doesn't support the millionaire migratory narrative, why is it still treated like gospel every time someone proposes a new tax bracket? Because it isn't really about economics—it's about politics. The threat of wealthy flight is a potent rhetorical weapon because it allows opponents of progressive taxation to cloak themselves in a self-serving argument that sounds in fiscal prudence rather than protection of the donor class. Opponents of progressive taxation can assure taxpayers they aren't defending inequality but are instead just exerting common sense policymaking to ensure the budget can be kept intact. It's austerity wrapped in the language of inevitability. The myth also thrives on anecdote. A billionaire leaves London for Dubai, and within the confines of one newspaper article a universe is created where the entire country is hemorrhaging wealth. One hedge fund manager moves to Florida and the lights are flipped off in New York. And yet, for every high-profile departure anecdote splashed across the headlines, there are thousands of high earners doing nothing of the sort. America in particular loves the image of the rugged capitalist jetsetter that can pull up stakes and relocate anywhere. The notion that the ultra-rich are nomads, unattached to place and ready to vanish abroad if offended, reflects the myth of individualism. And yet, it doesn't square with the reality that most wealthy people, like their less well-appointed counterparts, are deeply tied to their communities, industries, and local institutions. The board seat on the local nonprofit or country club doesn't fit in the luggage compartment of a private jet. Nonetheless, the myth will linger. In part because it provides cover, not just for the ultra-rich but also for the lawmakers who fear crossing them and offending their constituents in almost equal measure. The result is a political Pavlovian response where even modest tax reforms come with a side of millionaire exodus think-pieces.
ABC News
14-07-2025
- Business
- ABC News
How Australia's superannuation system subsidises the wealthy
What's the definition of reform? It all depends on who you're asking. The Macquarie Dictionary neatly sums it up as thus: "The improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, etc." But when it comes to money, and particularly taxation, the righting of wrongs is chucked out the window. Self-interest reigns supreme. Everyone, it seems, claims to want tax reform. But you only need to scratch the surface to figure out that what they really want is to not pay any tax at all, and to let someone else pick up the tab. Never has that been more evident than right now with the growing chorus of opposition to the federal government's plan to claw back some of the tax breaks available to the nation's richest households. The backlash underscores the difficulty in implementing real reform. Only a tiny fraction of the population will be impacted by the proposed changes — which will claw back about $2 billion a year in revenue — and, on any reading, they hardly need to be on the receiving end of social welfare programs. Treasury advice provided to the Albanese government after its re-election revealed this week by the ABC, the need for higher taxes and spending restraint to put the federal budget back into balance. But the tax system is not merely an instrument for raising revenue. It is also an important tool for distributing national income to minimise the harmful impacts of wealth inequality that can erode social cohesion, harm economic growth and lead to political instability. For all the noise over the mooted superannuation changes, it simply is an attempt to partially close off a loophole that has been used to set up tax shelters for the rich rather than provide for retirement. Even after the changes, wealthy individuals will still be able to provide themselves with a generous tax-free income. Younger Australians, meanwhile, on much lower wages will still be forced to carry the can, subsidising a cohort of well-off retirees for health care and aged care services. It's the kind of intergenerational wealth transfer that has raised concerns for many economists. Somewhere out there, there's a self-managed super fund with more than half a billion dollars. If the person behind that fund is retired, in a half decent year, the fund would be throwing off around $50 million or so in income, a little under $5 million a month. Most of that income is taxed at a mere 15 per cent, a rate way below the level of most working Australians. That's now about to change although the privileges aren't being entirely stripped away. But it's generated an enormous backlash from the wealthy and powerful section of society. The Australian Tax Office no longer reveals the size of the top individual funds. Perhaps it is too embarrassing. The latest figures, obtained last October for the 2022/23 year by the Australian Financial Review, show that the 10 biggest self-managed funds had an average of $422 million each in assets and 42 funds had more than $100 million each. Clearly, super funds of this magnitude aren't about a retirement income. They're tax shelters. Once the beneficiary has retired, the earnings from super funds are mostly tax free on balances up to $2 million. That limit, introduced by the Turnbull government, was an attempt to haul in the runaway expenses of the overly generous superannuation system. When first initiated, the limit was $1.6 million but it has been frequently lifted to keep pace with inflation, including just a fortnight ago. Beyond the new $2 million limit, retirees are obliged to pay just 15 per cent in tax on earnings and only on the portion above the limit. That's below the tax rate for a worker pulling in a meagre $18,200 a year where the tax rate is 16 per cent. Even apprentices and those just a little beyond the minimum wage have some of their earnings taxed at 30 per cent while tax rates for those higher up the scales hit 37 per cent and top out at 45 per cent. Under Jim Chalmers' proposed new system, another cap will be put in place. Funds with balances between $2 million and $3 million will continue to pay 15 per cent tax on earnings between those bands. Those with more than $3 million will pay 30 per cent on earnings above that upper limit. That's still below the top two tax rates for those who actually work for a living and represents a generous subsidy, a social welfare payment, for those sitting on massive retirement funds. In an average year with 7.5 per cent returns, a fund with almost $2 million will deliver a retiree close to $150,000. With the kind of returns we've seen in recent years, up to $200,000 wouldn't be a stretch. That's a pretty decent income. And it's tax free. Once the fund grows beyond $2 million, tax starts to kick in but only on the earnings above the $2 million threshold and only at 15 per cent. Bear in mind that most retirees in this category would likely own their own home. With a fund approaching $3 million, kicking back almost $300,000 a year, the tax bill on that income would be a mere $15,000. On any measure, that is a large income capable of supporting someone in retirement. Compare that to a young Australian worker struggling to make ends meet and pulling in the average $102,000 a year. He or she would be up for a tax bill just shy of $24,000. If they weren't paying exorbitant rent, they'd be weighed down by an enormous mortgage that would most likely be draining most of their income, leaving little room for any kind of discretionary spending. Superannuation and housing have contributed to an ever widening inequality gap in Australia during the past 20 years. According to a study by the University of NSW, Australians in the top wealth decile saw their riches grow a far greater rate than the bottom 60 per cent. Almost half of all the increased wealth went to the top 10 per cent of households since 2003. As our population ages, fewer workers will be forced to support an ever-growing number of retirees, many of whom will require expensive medical treatments and aged care. The mathematics clearly don't add up. At some point, revenue will need to be raised from somewhere other than lowly paid employees and the businesses that employ them. The obvious target will be a shift towards taxing wealth in addition to income. But that kind of shift doesn't come without a fight. Any change to tax regimes involves someone being worse off. And even if they remain better off than most others, powerful vested interests refuse to cede ground. That's precisely what we're witnessing now, where a little over 80,000 well-heeled individuals are digging in to ensure they not just retain their wealth but the ability to ensure it grows at the expense of others. According to the Grattan Institute, tax breaks on super contributions alone cost the federal budget $50 billion a year and disproportionately accrue to older and wealthier Australians. Malcolm Turnbull was labelled a turncoat for introducing the superannuation earnings ceiling. Jim Chalmers, in the meantime, has been attacked for not being bold enough, that a thorough overhaul of the system is required rather than tinkering around the edges. Perhaps the much-vaunted Economic Reform Roundtable will yield a breakthrough where everyone abandons self-interest and comes together to work in the best interests of the nation. Then again, maybe not.
CBS News
13-07-2025
- Business
- CBS News
New York Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado on why he's running against his boss, Gov. Kathy Hochul
New York Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado is seeking to replace his boss, Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is up for reelection in 2026. Delgado said he plans to focus his primary campaign on lowering the cost of living and criticized Hochul for refusing to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy and large corporations. He also believes more voters in the deep blue state are turning away from the Democratic party under the governor's leadership. "I think there's a real thirst out there for driving down the cost of living, whether it's housing, whether it's child care, whether it's health care. And I think for a very long time those trend lines for the typical New Yorker across the state have been going in the wrong direction, and the numbers bear that. One in five kids right now live in poverty. One in four New Yorkers can't afford basic necessities, be it groceries, be it housing. I think when you combine that with the fact that we had the largest wealth inequality gap in the country right here in New York, there's a reason why we saw the largest swing from left to right in the country right here in New York," Delgado said Sunday on CBS News New York's "The Point with Marcia Kramer." Hochul has frequently focused on affordability, including expanding the child tax credit in her latest $254 billion state budget deal in Albany. She is opposed to raising income taxes. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado celebrate their win during an election night party during on November 8, 2022 in New York City. Gov. Kathy Hochul defeated Republican challenger Lee Zeldin to become the state's first woman to be elected governor . Alex Kent / Getty Images "I think raising revenue, certainly on the ultra wealthy and big corporations is a part of that. The governor has refused to do that at any point over the course of her administration, which is not the right approach," the lieutenant governor continued. "I think it's also a mistake to not reevaluate the manner in which we leverage tax subsidies and credits in the name of economic development. We give a lot of these things out to the private sector without really getting a return on investment. We should be reevaluating how we spend public dollars and reinvest those dollars directly into folks who need it the most." Statistics show approximately 7,000 people in New York pay the bulk of the taxes, but Delgado said he's not concerned about the wealthy moving out of the state if they were forced to pay a higher rate. "The people who are moving are making between $30,000-$60,000 a year," he said. "This has been a trend line for decades. And I think that speaks to the fact that there hasn't been any real, bold, transformational change that has been driven by a commitment to reassessing how we are allocating public dollars. Instead, entrenched economic and political interests have more or less maintained this dynamic over time, and has left communities behind. That's not just in the city, that's all across the state, rural areas upstate as well." Hochul was elevated to governor in 2021, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigned from office in his third term. She defeated Republican challenger Lee Zeldin to win a full term in 2022 -- the closest governor's race in New York since 1994, when the GOP's George Pataki unseated incumbent Mario Cuomo. In 2024, President Trump lost to Vice President Kamala Harris by about 13 percentage points -- the closest presidential race in the Empire State since 1988. Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado speaks during the NYREC Emerging Leaders and Markets (ELM) Conference at the Victoria Renaissance Hotel on June 06, 2025 in New York City. Delgado spoke during the event which brings together leaders from Government, Business, Community Development, and Finance as he begins to campaign for governor as he primaries Gov. Kathy Hochul. Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images So far, polling indicates she would defeat her challengers in the Democratic party. Delgado was appointed lieutenant governor in 2022 after Brian Benjamin was indicted on federal bribery and fraud charges and resigned. The charges were eventually dropped. In his interview, he also discussed rising electricity rates, Zohran Mamdani and the New York City mayor's race, the Trump administration, and more. To watch the full interview, click here.
Forbes
10-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
The Twist Ending Of Netflix's ‘Squid Game' Season 3, Explained
Cate Blanchett in the 'Squid Game' season 3 finale Netflix The third and final season of Squid Game is a dark descent into humanity's worst impulses, with a surprisingly hopeful ending—here's what season 3 was really about. Netflix's Squid Game holds up a dark mirror to the wealth inequality, greed and desperation of the current moment—in the third and final season, series creator Hwang Dong-Hyuk gave us a cynical, yet hopeful conclusion. Notably, some of the contestants have been drawn to the games due to gambling and crypto schemes. This time, the cruelty of the billionaires orchestrating Squid Game is matched by the greed of the contestants. One of the most important episodes of the first season sees the contestants voting to leave, then choosing to come back after experiencing the horrors of living with debt. In season 3, the choice of the contestants to stay is emphasized by the repeating votes held between each game—this time, the money is split between surviving members. Yet, we see the contestants continually choose to stay for a bigger take of the winnings, willing to sacrifice each another for the chance of a bigger number. There is nothing our saintly protagonist, player 456, Gi-hun (Lee Jung-jae) can say to change the majority's mind—Gi-hun's curse is that he is doomed to repeat the horrors of the past, despite knowing how it's all going to go down. In the finale of season 3, the deep greed of the contestants reveals itself in a horrifically calm, 'logical' conversation between the surviving group of men, who all happily agree to murder a baby in order to win the game. Humanity's greed reaches its height in the final instance of a father willing to kill his own baby girl. Thankfully, this is contrasted by Gi-hun's desperation to save the child, no matter what. Player 333, Myung-gi (played by Yim Si-wan) does his best to maneuver the group away from his helpless daughter, but ultimately makes a choice to murder her when he has the final say. Squid Game seems to imply that there is no end to the greed of humanity, no rock bottom to hit—only an bottomless pit. In this story, money is framed as a poisonous substance, a mind virus. Still, Squid Game suggests that the allure of money can be resisted. In the end, Gi-hun manages to triumph, and chooses to give up his own life for the baby, as the rules only allowed for a single survivor. His sacrifice inspires others, shifting the final outcome of the deadly game. Series creator Hwang Dong-hyuk wanted the moment to highlight the necessity of sacrificing for the younger generation. Hwang said, 'The message I wanted to communicate was that if we solely pursue our immediate self-interest, and refuse to self-restrain, sacrifice, or bear any costs — and if we don't put our heads together — we have no future.' Hence, the baby survives to inherit the fortune—the meaning of money is flipped, and now represents the baby's salvation. An interesting blend of triumph and cynicism pervades the finale, as the rebel guard No Eul (Park Gyu-young) manages to overpower the others, and free Gyeong-seok (Lee Jin-wook), who returns to his daughter. Families that were torn apart are reunited, as No Eul is given hope that her own daughter might be waiting for her in China. The Frontman (Lee Byung-hun) and his brother (Wi Ha-joon) reach the end of their personal game, with the Frontman having had a change of heart, inspired by Gi-hun's empathy. Hence, the island facility is destroyed, the baby is saved, and Squid Game has ended in Korea—but the games are not over. The very last scene is set in Los Angeles, where the Front Man witnesses an American recruiter playing Ddakji, luring another victim into the games, confirming that Squid Game is international. Gi-hun's Christ-like sacrifice can only do so much—the rot is worldwide. Of course, there could be another layer to this ending, as Netflix is surely seeking to monetize Squid Game and expand the franchise (ironic, given the anti-capitalist themes of the series). However, Hwang never intended that to be the message. "I wanted to convey that in this late capitalist society, the system remains strong, deeply entrenched, and powerful—and that these kinds of games are still continuing in the US," Hwang Dong-Hyuk told Vanity Fair. Is There Going To Be An American 'Squid Game' Spin-Off? An American Squid Game spin-off could be on the horizon, but without the involvement of Hwang, or Blanchett. In 2024, Deadline reported that an English-language Squid Game series from Fight Club director David Fincher was in the works, but the spin-off hasn't been officially confirmed by Netflix or Fincher. Hwang denies any knowledge of an American Squid Game spin-off, but has spoken positively of the idea: "I've always been a huge fan of David Fincher's work — from Se7en — and I've loved his films. So if he were to create an American Squid Game , I think that would be very interesting to watch. I would definitely click on it immediately after it's released, if it were to happen." MORE FROM FORBES Forbes HBO's 'The Last Of Us' Season 2 Finale, Explained By Dani Di Placido Forbes How Labubu Dolls Took Over The Internet By Dani Di Placido Forbes TikTok's '4th Of July Antipasto' Controversy, Explained By Dani Di Placido Forbes What Is 'Umamusume: Pretty Derby'? The Viral Horse Girl Game, Explained By Dani Di Placido
Forbes
08-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Democratizing Venture Capital And Building A Better World
Mike Collins, Founder & CEO, Alumni Ventures (AV) Democratizing Venture Capital And Building A Better World Venture-backed companies have created trillions in market value over the past few decades but less than 1% of U.S. households have access to venture capital investments, according to Forbes. This exclusivity has contributed to wealth inequality and limited the capital available to innovative startups. Today, however, venture capital is being democratized in ways that are opening up more private investment opportunities and making the world a better place at the same time. In terms of pure financial performance, data from Cambridge Associates shows that U.S. venture capital has delivered a 19.3% pooled return over the past 25 years compared to 9.1% for the S&P 500. It's also a market that is expected to grow over 20% in 2025 according to Wise. The biggest areas of growth? AI, healthcare innovation, green technology and the democratization of the industry. Increasingly, more people will have the opportunity to invest in startups they believe in and help to bring the truly great ideas into the mainstream. And, with new investors on board, the venture capital sector will benefit from more diverse sources of capital and new perspectives. Including those of next generation investors who are increasingly 'impact curious' and are looking for opportunities to leverage their capital for meaningful change, according to research by the Center for Sustainable Finance & Private Wealth. Alumni Ventures (AV) has become one of the most active venture capital firms in the United States and is leading the path towards democratizing access to private investing. Since 2014 the firm has raised over $1.5 billion, made investments in more than 1,600 companies, and built a network community of more than 850,000 members. The firm recently launched AV Syndicate, a new investment platform allowing accredited investors to participate in individual venture deals with a minimum investment of only $10,000. But what sets AV apart isn't just the scale of its network or the size of its portfolio. It's the firm's commitment to democratizing venture capital in a way that channels investment dollars toward startups that are building a better future. AV was founded in 2014 by serial entrepreneur and Dartmouth alumnus Mike Collins on the idea that venture capital doesn't have to be exclusive. By leveraging the power of alumni networks and new technology, AV is making high-quality venture capital opportunities accessible to individual investors at scale. 'We believe that democratizing access to alternative investments is not just good business—it's essential for a more equitable financial system and a more innovative economy,' said Collins. 'By opening venture capital to individual accredited investors, we're helping to bridge this gap and create more opportunities for wealth creation.' Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Collins about why democratizing access to venture capital will be good for the investment community and for the world. Paul Klein: You've built a very different kind of venture capital firm. How did people react when you started? Mike Collins: When I started Alumni Ventures, people asked 'Why the hell would you bother with a $50,000 check from a heart surgeon in Des Moines?' But that heart surgeon in Des Moines, along with 11,000 other people, is part of a really powerful network that's valuable to entrepreneurs, allows us to get into better investments that gives better returns, and makes it appealing for more people to join the network. Paul Klein: Why hasn't the same investment ecosystem that has built America's strength in technology, and made the U.S. economy successful, been accessible to ordinary investors? Mike Collins: With the goal of protecting people from themselves, we've made the world of investing exclusively the purview of endowments, pension funds, and super rich people. Today, however, companies are staying private longer because they can raise as much without being public and dealing with short term thinking, day traders and algorithms. This is creating more opportunities for private investors. For example, OpenAI just raised $40 billion privately. What we're doing is creating a global entrepreneurial ecosystem where venture capital is democratized. Paul Klein: What makes investing in venture capital fundamentally different from investing in the public markets? Mike Collins: If you buy S&P's ETF, it's just a number that shows up in your Schwab statement or your 401(k). When you invest $10,000 into Oura, and the company does really well, there's the pride of being really involved in helping something great. That's very different from owning Apple or Microsoft. Paul Klein: What do you see as the key ingredients that have made U.S. entrepreneurs so successful? Mike Collins: I would say the strategic strength of the United States, the reason we are in the position we are as a society, is because we have dominated technology, had an ecosystem that supported innovation and entrepreneurship, and sold our products globally. More than that, as we moved from a manufacturing economy to an information economy, many companies, including Google, and NVIDIA, were founded by first generation Americans. One of the reasons that so many great companies are founded by first generation Americans is because it's a tough job and you've got to be gritty. You don't have a lot of trust fund kids growing up in Greenwich starting companies - it's too hard. Paul Klein: Accessing capital is the first test for every entrepreneur. How does AV help people from underrepresented backgrounds who have an even tougher time starting companies? Mike Collins: Building a company is hard but great entrepreneurs are able to find ways to access capital. Usually that starts out with a small group of friends and family, or people from your industry that get you going. Then you've got to prove yourself. At some point, the really good companies want a really strong venture capital firm as a lead investor. We also have a dedicated and fully staffed Women's Fund, have invested in an Anti-Bias Fund, and have one of the most tenured and prodigious Venture Fellow Programs in the world, which is specifically designed to help under-represented populations get into VC. Paul Klein: AI has been flagged as one of the three biggest areas for growth in venture capital investing. What's your take on the risks and opportunities in this space? Mike Collins: AI has been around a couple years now and I don't see it taking over the world. I don't see massive unemployment. Our healthcare system sucks, our education system is 100 years old, and it's a good thing that change is in order. There will be problems and unintended consequences, but the answer isn't to go back to 1950. Today, an open-minded, AI-native young person who is comfortable with these tools can accomplish so much more, so much quicker, and help older people be more productive. Paul Klein: Some investors argue that venture capital is risky, especially for individuals. How does your model address that? Mike Collins: I think venture capital as an asset class is perceived as risky because most people don't really have access to the best deals. We reduce risk by creating a big network of pooled capital and offering people large portfolios where they can own a hundred ventures led by top VCs. Paul Klein: What's your view of the role that next generation investors will play in the growth of venture capital investing? Mike Collins: The next generation wants to feel that they're investing in things that they believe in and care about—not just an asset class and a number that grows. There's also the psychology of feeling like you're helping to create the future of something important to the world by investing in areas you can believe in like small nuclear reactors, energy or AI. Next Gen investors also want to be part of a community of people who want to make the world a better place. We hold events where alumni of schools look at their portfolios together and hear from entrepreneurs about the timeframe for how their companies will be impacting our lives. Paul Klein: Finally, what investments are you most proud of? Mike Collins: Doing well and doing good are not mutually exclusive. For example, eleven years ago there was a company called Groups that created a national network of drug addiction clinics. It was a good investment and that also solved a problem. Some of our other portfolio companies in energy are creating new technology that allows us to do safer, more local distributed energy production, where we don't have to dig into the ground and burn carbon. I'm very proud of the work they're doing because I want to leave the world a better place for my kids. Collins and his team at AV are contributing to a fundamental reinvention of the investment industry. One where accessible venture capital may become the first choice for people who want access to private markets and to be part of a community of investors who want healthy returns and a healthy planet. "We're here to democratize venture capital, empower individual investors, and help entrepreneurs make the world a better place,' said Collins. 'That's how we'll reinvent this industry—and why I believe the best is yet to come."
