Connect with us

Business

Audrey Gelman, Ty Haney deserve a second chance as female founders

Published

on



In today’s edition: Linda Yaccarino’s new job, a business opportunity in sports, and female founders are trying again—and that’s a good thing.

– Take two. Over the past few weeks, some of the names that defined 2010s female-founded startups have been back in the headlines. Audrey Gelman, known for founding the Wing, opened her new hotel the Six Bells in upstate New York. Ty Haney came back to revitalize the struggling, now private equity-owned athleisure brand she founded, Outdoor Voices. Yael Aflalo, who founded the still-popular fashion brand Reformation, has a new label.

All of these women not only built companies in the 2010s—about five years ago, they were part of a wave of female founders who were forced out or lost control of their businesses.

There were a lot of factors at play during that time: lofty promises made by brands that pledged to change the world and achieve equality—and were then confronted with the realities of capitalism; the tensions of the months that followed George Floyd’s murder; the difficulties of the early pandemic; employee and investor pressure; and, yes, genuine leadership issues. Media coverage built these founders up—but then contributed to their fall. I should know; I was writing about these founders through all of it. Besides the three founders who have launched new ventures in recent months, Away’s Steph Korey and Refinery29’s Christene Barberich were some of the others to be swept up in this trend.

But it’s been five years, and I think it’s time to say: these founders deserve another shot.

One reason female founders lost control of their businesses more easily than men did is that their employees and customers both held them to higher standards. Their stakeholders cared more about social justice (and their investors were less likely to have their backs through a crisis).

But the solution isn’t for these women to disappear from public life forever. “The wave of women founders who resigned in 2020—I think it satisfied a cultural appetite, but it sort of left a vacuum,” Gelman told me when I reached out for her thoughts last week. “Particularly these women who were great at building product, creative, and doing things no one had ever done.”

People enjoyed poking fun at the “girlboss,” but the jabs added up. “That period of time, five years ago, certainly turned off many women or girls that I knew that initially had interest [in building companies],” Haney told me when we caught up about her return to OV. Since departing the recreation brand, she has been more quietly building a blockchain-based consumer-loyalty platform called TYB, for which she recently raised $11 million—but her return to her firstborn brand is different. She’s not running the business itself this time and is instead focused on creative, but it’s “on [her] terms,” she says. “I hope it creates a wake of interest from young women in pursuing business aspirations and brand-building aspirations,” she says of her return and others’.

These founders, though, had to be ready to come back too. For now, Gelman’s endeavor (which started with a store in Brooklyn) resembles a traditional small business more than a globally expanding venture-backed startup, although she’s hinted at the potential for more hotels. She calls the through-line between the Wing and the “country kitsch” Six Bells a form of “world-building,” the creative side that originally set the Wing apart from other co-working spaces and private clubs. “Getting to build something new with more maturity and self-awareness—it takes time to properly absorb the lessons from a first company,” Gelman says.

And the question is: will things be different this time? Personally, I think they will. Structurally, some things haven’t changed. Women-only founding teams still get around 2% of VC dollars, and that stat has actually shrunk in recent years.

But culturally, a lot has. With the rise of TikTok, social media has become less glossy—allowing founders to share a more authentic view of their experience from the start, rather than a picture-perfect version that then gets torn down. Founders have more resources to respond quickly to any scandals and speak directly to their audiences. There are more ways to build a brand than fully depending on the founder as the face of it. Five years later, there’s an entire generation of Gen Z consumers that wasn’t really paying attention last time around and doesn’t carry millennials’ 2010s startup baggage.

Within the startup world, there’s less pressure to achieve growth at all costs—which led to some of the challenges for this era of companies. The Wing raised more than $100 million during its life, and Outdoor Voices had raised about $60 million by 2020. More disciplined running of businesses, with an eye to profitability, yields more responsible leadership.

And, of course, there’s a growing frustration with the reality that men have been forgiven by the public for much, much worse than needing some management coaching—just take a look at the White House. The rise of the manosphere has made women hungry to see other women’s success again.

There will still be challenges. Founders aren’t perfect, and female founders are no exception. Consumers will get mad about something, employees will have complaints, and things will go off the rails sometimes. “I’m hopeful that … we can normalize challenges, and ideally, these challenges that come up and people may feel sensitivity around are things that can be worked through, versus causing founders to have to depart the company,” Haney says.

On the whole, it can only be a good thing for women to be building, without fear, in public again. This generation of founders deserve another chance—and all women deserve to see that one failure isn’t the end.

Emma Hinchliffe
emma.hinchliffe@fortune.com

The Most Powerful Women Daily newsletter is Fortune’s daily briefing for and about the women leading the business world. Subscribe here.

ALSO IN THE HEADLINES

– X to GLP. Linda Yaccarino has a new job. After leaving her role as CEO of X alongside Elon Musk, the former ad exec is becoming CEO of the GLP-1 telehealth company eMed Population Health. Axios

– BLS bill. President Trump’s firing of Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner Erika McEntarfer prompted Democrats to introduce new legislation. The bill would protect the heads of government agencies focused on statistics—the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau among them—from being fired except in cases of neglect or malfeasance. Wall Street Journal

– Painful miss. There’s a business opportunity in shoes for female athletes. A new study finds that 89% of female rugby players experience pain wearing boots that were originally designed for men. Almost half of all athletes surveyed experience pain on the bone above the big toe, where a stud is placed on boots for men. Guardian

MOVERS AND SHAKERS

The Women on Boards Project hired Kierstin Rielly as CEO from Naturally San Diego. 

Legal tech company Ironclad hired Sunita Verma as their CTO; she came from Character.AI. 

ON MY RADAR

What it will take to get U.S. citizens to work the farm, according to Dolores Huerta Politico

Stacey Abrams: The DEI & ESG retreat isn’t just bad business, it’s cowardly. We define who we are in moments of fear, and it’s time to make a stand Fortune

Jessie Buckley goes where few actresses dare New York Times

PARTING WORDS

“We have enough documentaries about Britney Spears to know how it works.” 

—King Princess on her troubles with the major labels in the music industry. Her new album is Girl Violence

This is the web version of MPW Daily, a daily newsletter for and about the world’s most powerful women. Sign up to get it delivered free to your inbox.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Quant who said passive era is ‘worse than Marxism’ doubles down

Published

on



Inigo Fraser Jenkins once warned that passive investing was worse for society than Marxism. Now he says even that provocative framing may prove too generous.

In his latest note, the AllianceBernstein strategist argues that the trillions of dollars pouring into index funds aren’t just tracking markets — they are distorting them. Big Tech’s dominance, he says, has been amplified by passive flows that reward size over substance. Investors are funding incumbents by default, steering more capital to the biggest names simply because they already dominate benchmarks.

He calls it a “dystopian symbiosis”: a feedback loop between index funds and platform giants like Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Nvidia Corp. that concentrates power, stifles competition, and gives the illusion of safety. Unlike earlier market cycles driven by fundamentals or active conviction, today’s flows are automatic, often indifferent to risk.

Fraser Jenkins is hardly alone in sounding the alarm. But his latest critique has reignited a debate that’s grown harder to ignore. Just 10 companies now account for more than a third of the S&P 500’s value, with tech names driving an outsize share of 2025’s gains.

“Platform companies and a lack of active capital allocation both imply a less effective form of capitalism with diminished competition,” he wrote in a Friday note. “A concentrated market and high proportion of flows into cap weighted ‘passive’ indices leads to greater risks should recent trends reverse.” 

While the emergence of behemoth companies might be reflective of more effective uses of technology, it could also be the result of failures of anti-trust policies, among other things, he argues. Artificial intelligence might intensify these issues and could lead to even greater concentrations of power among firms. 

His note, titled “The Dystopian Symbiosis: Passive Investing and Platform Capitalism,” is formatted as a fictional dialog between three people who debate the topic. One of the characters goes as far as to argue that the present situation requires an active policy intervention — drawing comparisons to the breakup of Standard Oil at the start of the 20th century — to restore competition.

data-srcyload

In a provocative note titled “The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing is Worse Than Marxism” and written nearly a decade ago, Fraser Jenkins argued that the rise of index-tracking investing would lead to greater stock correlations, which would impede “the efficient allocation of capital.” His employer, AllianceBernstein, has continued to launch ETFs since the famous research was published, though its launches have been actively managed. 

Other active managers have presented similar viewpoints — managers at Apollo Global Management last year said the hidden costs of the passive-investing juggernaut included higher volatility and lower liquidity. 

There have been strong rebuttals to the critique: a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. study showed the role of fundamentals remains an all-powerful driver for stock valuations; Citigroup Inc. found that active managers themselves exert a far bigger influence than their passive rivals on a stock’s performance relative to its industry.

“ETFs don’t ruin capitalism, they exemplify it,” said Eric Balchunas, Bloomberg Intelligence’s senior ETF analyst. “The competition and innovation are through the roof. That is capitalism in its finest form and the winner in that is the investor.”

Since Fraser Jenkins’s “Marxism” note, the passive juggernaut has only grown. Index-tracking ETFs, which have grown in popularity thanks to their ease of trading and relatively cheaper management fees, are often cited as one of the primary culprits in this debate. The segment has raked in $842 billion so far this year, compared with the $438 billion hauled in by actively managed funds, even as there are more active products than there are passive ones, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Of the more than $13 trillion that’s in ETFs overall, $11.8 trillion is parked in passive vehicles. The majority of ETF ownership is concentrated in low-cost index funds that have significantly reduced the cost for investors to access financial markets. 

In Fraser Jenkins’s new note, one of his fictitious characters ask another what the “dystopian symbiosis” implies for investors. 

“The passive index is riskier than it has been in the past,” the character answers. “The scale of the flows that have been disproportionately into passive cap-weighted funds with a high exposure to the mega cap companies implies the risk of a significant negative wealth effect if there is an upset to expectations for those large companies.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Why the timing was right for Salesforce’s $8 billion acquisition of Informatica — and for the opportunities ahead

Published

on



The must-haves for building a market-leading business include vision, talent, culture, product innovation and customer focus. But what’s the secret to success with a merger or acquisition? 

I was asked about this in the wake of Salesforce’s recently completed $8 billion acquisition of Informatica. In part, I believe that people are paying attention because deal-making is up in 2025. M&A volume reached $2.2 trillion in the first half of the year, a 27% increase compared to a year ago, according to JP Morgan. Notably, 72% of that volume involved deals greater than $1 billion. 

There will be thousands of mergers and acquisitions in the United States this year across industries and involving companies of all sizes. It’s not unusual for startups to position themselves to be snapped up. But Informatica, founded in 1993, didn’t fit that mold. We have been building, delivering, supporting and partnering for many years. Much of the value we bring to Salesforce and its customers is our long-earned experience and expertise in enterprise data management. 

Although, in other respects, a “legacy” software company like ours — founded well before cloud computing was mainstream — and early-stage startups aren’t so different. We all must move fast and differentiate. And established vendors and growth-oriented startups have a few things in common when it comes to M&A, as well. 

First and foremost is a need to ensure that the strategies of the two companies involved are in alignment. That seems obvious, but it’s easier said than done. Are their tech stacks based on open protocols and standards? Are they cloud-native by design? And, now more than ever, are they both AI-powered and AI-enabling? All of these came together in the case of Salesforce and Informatica, including our shared belief in agentic AI as the next major breakthrough in business technology.

Don’t take your foot off the gas

In the days after the acquisition was completed, I was asked during a media interview if good luck was a factor in bringing together these two tech industry stalwarts. Replace good luck with good timing, and the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

As more businesses pursue the productivity and other benefits of agentic AI, they require high-quality data to be successful. These are two areas where Salesforce and Informatica excel, respectively. And the agentic AI opportunity — estimated to grow to $155 billion by 2030 — is here and now. So the timing of the acquisition was perfect. 

Tremendous effort goes into keeping an organization on track, leading up to an acquisition and then seeing it through to a smooth and successful completion. In the few months between the announcement of Salesforce’s intent to acquire Informatica and the close, we announced new partnerships and customer engagements and a fall product release that included autonomous AI agents, MCP servers and more. 

In other words, there’s no easing into the new future. We must maintain the pace of business because the competitive environment and our customers require it. That’s true whether you’re a small, venture-funded organization or, like us, an established firm with thousands of employees and customers. Going forward we plan to keep doing what we do best: help organizations connect, manage and unify their AI data. 

Out with the old, in with the new

It’s wrong to think of an acquisition as an end game. It’s a new chapter. 

Business leaders and employees in many organizations have demonstrated time and again that they are quite good at adapting to an ever-changing competitive landscape. A few years ago, we undertook a company-wide shift from on-premises software to cloud-first. There was short-term disruption but long-term advantage. It’s important to develop an organizational mindset that thrives on change and transformation, so when the time comes, you’re ready for these big steps. 

So, even as we take pride in all that we accomplished to get to this point, we now begin to take on a fresh identity as part of a larger whole. It’s an opportunity to engage new colleagues and flourish professionally. And importantly, customers will be the beneficiaries of these new collaborations and synergies. On the day Informatica was welcomed into the Salesforce family and ecosystem, I shared my feeling that “the best is yet to come.” That’s my North Star and one I recommend to every business leader forging ahead into an M&A evolution — because the truest measure of success ultimately will be what we accomplish next.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The ‘Great Housing Reset’ is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026

Published

on



Homebuyers may experience a reprieve in 2026 as price normalization and an increase in home sales over the next year will take some pressure off the market—but don’t expect homebuying to be affordable in the short run for Gen Z and young families.

The “Great Housing Reset” will start next year, with income growth outpacing home-price growth for a prolonged period for the first time since the Great Recession era, according to a Redfin report released this week. 

The residential real estate brokerage sees mortgage rates in the low-6% range, down from down from the 2025 average of 6.6%; a median home sales price increase of just 1%, down from 2% this year; and monthly housing payments growth that will lag behind wage growth, which will remain steady at 4%.

These trends toward increased affordability will likely bring back some house hunters to the market, but many Gen Zers and young families will opt for nontraditional living situations, according to the report. 

More adult children will be living with their parents, as households continue to shift further away from a nuclear family structure, Redfin predicted.

“Picture a garage that’s converted into a second primary suite for adult children moving back in with their parents,” the report’s authors wrote. “Redfin agents in places like Los Angeles and Nashville say more homeowners are planning to tailor their homes to share with extended family.”

Gen Z and millennial homeownership rates plateaued last year, with no improvement expected. Just over one-quarter of Gen Zers owned their home in 2024, while the rate for millennial owners was 54.9% in the same year.

Meanwhile, about 6% of Americans who struggled to afford housing as of mid-2025 moved back in with their parents, while another 6% moved in with roommates. Both trends are expected to increase in 2026, according to the report.

Obstacles to home affordability 

Despite factors that could increase affordability for prospective homebuyers, C. Scott Schwefel, a real estate attorney at Shipman, Shaiken & Schwefel, LLC, told Fortune that income growth and home-price growth are just a few keys to sustainable homeownership. 

An improved income-to-price ratio is welcome, but unless tax bills stabilize, many households may not experience a net relief, Schwefel said.

“Prospective buyers need to recognize that affordability is not just price versus income…it’s price, mortgage rate and the annual bill for living in a place—and that bill includes property taxes,” he added.

In November, voters—especially young ones—showed lowering housing costs is their priority, the report said. But they also face high sale prices and mortgage rates, inflated insurance premiums, and potential utility costs hikes due to a data center construction boom that’s driving up energy bills. The report’s authors expect there to be a bipartisan push to help remedy the housing affordability crisis.

Still, an affordable housing market for first-time home buyers and young families still may be far away.

“The U.S. housing market should be considered moving from frozen to thawing,” Sergio Altomare, CEO of Hearthfire Holdings, a real estate private equity and development company, told Fortune

“Prices aren’t surging, but they’re no longer falling,” he added. “We are beginning to unlock some activity that’s been trapped for a couple of years.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.