Evidence that investors penalize female founders for lack of industry fit

Are female founding CEOs penalized when raising funds for their ventures based on industry served? Across an observational study conducted on ventures seeking funding (N = 392) and an experimental study conducted on investors allocating venture funding (N = 130), we find evidence for a “lack of fit” effect: Female-led ventures catering to male-dominated industries receive significantly less funding at significantly lower valuations than female-led ventures catering to female-dominated industries. In contrast, male-led ventures attain similar funding and valuation outcomes regardless of the gender dominance of the industries to which they cater. We confirm that this is because investors perceive lower degrees of fit between founding CEO and venture for female-led ventures catering to male- as opposed to female-dominated industries (with no perceived fit differences for male-led ventures across industries). Degree of investor sophistication emerges as a potential attenuating factor, appearing to help reduce gender bias from perceived lack of fit.

What Do Fund Flows Reveal about Asset Pricing Models and Investor Sophistication?

Recent evidence indicates that market model alphas are stronger predictors of mutual fund flows than alphas with other models. Some recent papers have interpreted this evidence to mean that CAPM is the best asset pricing model, but some others have interpreted it as evidence against investor sophistication. We evaluate the merits of these mutually exclusive interpretations. We show that no tenable inference about the validity of any asset pricing model can be drawn from this evidence. Rejecting the investor sophistication hypothesis is tenable, but the appropriate benchmark to judge sophistication is different from that used in this literature.